Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD PRICES.

Major KELLEY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the widespread public belief that the price of a loaf should not, under present conditions, exceed 9d.; and whether he has any information to show that undue profits are being made in its production?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): In view of the extremely rapid fall which has recently taken place in the price of wheat, some delay in the adjustment of the prices of flour and bread to the latest value of wheat is not, of necessity, a sign of excessive profits, but I have caused inquiries to be made and a careful watch kept on the situation.

Major KELLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 4-lb. loaf is being sold in Scotland to-day at 8d.?

Mr. G. BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the prices shall be published, so that people may know the difference between the wholesale and the retail prices?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider that.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that there are very strong millers' reasons on this question, and will he inquire further into the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (LACTOSE).

Mr. LAMBERT: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that one firm in this country uses from 25,000 to 30,000 gallons of milk per week in the preparation of infants' food and that pure milk sugar, an essential ingredient not produced in this country, is subjected to a 33⅓ import duty; and whether, seeing that such a duty will discourage milk production and increase the price of infants' food, he will at once cancel the duty?

Mr. MYERS: 5.
asked the President or the Board of Trade whether sugar-milk, British Pharmacopœia, has been entered as liable for duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; whether he is aware that this article is an essential
basis of all infant foods; whether, if the article is imported for making milk-stout, it is exempt from duty; if so, will he state the reason for this discrimination; and whether the advisability of removing this article from the list altogether will be considered?

Mr. BALDWIN: Crude lactose, which is used in the manufacture of milk-stout, is not dutiable under any heading of the Schedule to Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; the pure quality, which is used for the preparation of certain special foods, is dutiable as a fine chemical. As I have repeatedly stated, I have no power to exclude on any ground from the operation of the Act any commodity properly included within the general headings of the Schedule, but the question whether lactose is properly so included can be referred to the referee under Section 1 (5), and this I understand is being done.

Mr. LAMBERT: Did not the right hon. Gentleman on the 12th May specifically state that food in its widest sense would be excluded from the Schedule? Therefore, why does he by administrative act include it?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is not correct to say that by administrative act I have included food. It is a point of argument whether refined lactose is a food. Crude lactose will probably be refined in this country if the decision of the referees is adverse to the claimants.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not a fact that pure lactose is used in the preparation of infants' food? Surely infants' food is a key industry.

Mr. BALDWIN: It is a matter for the referees.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAYS (TRADERS' PANEL).

Mr. RAPER: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the traders' panel to be set up by his Department under the Ministry of Transport Act will be appointed; and whether he will take the advice of the Timber Trade Federation of the United Kingdom as to their being suitably represented on this panel?

Mr. BALDWIN: The selection of the 22 representatives of trading interests
whom I have to nominate to the General Panel to be set up under Section 24 of the Railways Act, 1921, is under consideration in consultation with bodies representative of trading interests. I cannot say more at present than that the representations which I have received from the Timber Trade Federation will receive careful attention.

Mr. RAPER: In view of the fact that the timber trade represents one-third of the total goods traffic of the English railways, will the right hon. Gentleman give a promise that there will be at least one representative of the timber trade, and that that representative shall be approved by the Federation representing the entire industry?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot allow my hon. Friend to make me give a promise, but he may rest assured that all facts brought to my notice will be borne in mind.

RATES ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. RAPER: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport when the Rates Advisory Council will be set up?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The permanent members of the Railway Rates Tribunal, constituted under the Railways Act, 1921, to which my hon. Friend doubtless alludes, have been appointed by His Majesty. The President is Sir Francis Gore-Browne, K.C., Chairman of the Rates Advisory Committee; the member experienced in commercial affairs is Mr. G. C. Locket, of the firm of Messrs. Gardner, Locket and Hinton; and the member experienced in railway business is Mr. W. A. Jepson, late Assistant General Manager to the London and North Western Railway.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IRON AND STEEL (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Major KELLEY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the value of our imports of iron and steel during the most recent month for which figures are available and the value of the home output of similar goods during the same period, as also the value of British iron and steel which was exported?

Mr. BALDWIN: The reply involves a statistical statement, and I will accordingly, with the permission of the House, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commodity.
Imports (Total).
Exports of United Kingdom Manufacture.
Home Production.



Quantities.


(A) Iron and Steel Products for which Production Statistics are
available:—
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


(1) Pig Iron
…
…
…
…
121,711
6,941
158,300


(2) Steel Ingots and Castings
…
559
558
429,300


(3) Wrought Iron and Finished Steel Products.
69,858
102,540
358,000


(B) Other Iron and Steel Products
…
…
13,999
23,285
Cannot be stated.


Total
…
…
…
206,127
133,324
Cannot be stated.



Values.


(A) Iron and Steel Products for which Production Statistics are
available.—
£
£
£


(1) Pig Iron
…
…
…
…
707,000
71,000
Cannot be stated.


(2) Steel Ingots and Castings
…
…
23,000
73,000


(3) Wrought Iron and Finished Steel Products.
744,000
2,596,000


(B) Other Iron and Steel Products
…
…
356,000
1,342,000


Total
…
…
…
1,830,000
4,082,000
Cannot be stated.

The particulars relating to imports and exports have been compiled from the official monthly accounts relating to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom, while those for home production are based on information collected by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers.

OVERSEAS TRADE (REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in what number of cities overseas his Department is represented; and whether the results of the work already carried out justify any increase in that representation?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Department has permanent salaried representatives in 34 cities in foreign countries and in 12 cities within the Empire. It has, in

The following statement gives the information desired by the hon. and gallant Member, as far as the information is available. The particulars relate to the month of September last:

addition, the assistance of British Consular representatives all over the world in its commercial work and of 56 Imperial trade correspondents within the Empire. Of the Imperial trade correspondents 40 are honorary and 16 receive an allowance of £100 per annum. There can be no question at the present time of any increase of staff.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Have not these representatives done most excellent work for British trade all over the world?

Mr. BALDWIN: I believe that that is so.

IMPORTS FROM GERMANY.

Mr. GILBERT: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of the imports from Germany for the first nine months of this year; and how the same compare with the imports for a like period in 1920 and also in 1913?

Mr. BALDWIN: The value of the imports into the United Kingdom, consigned from Germany, was as follows:


January-September, inclusive, 1913
£58,646,204


January-September, inclusive, 1920
£20,647,207


January-September, inclusive, 1921
£15,584,632

TRADE COMBINES.

Major BARNES: 32.
asked the Prime Minister if there is any evidence in the possession of the Government showing that the action of rings, trusts, and combines is maintaining any prices above a level to which they would otherwise fall; and, if so, whether, as such action is calculated to increase the cost of production and produce unemployment, the Government will carry out during this Session their undertaking to introduce legislation dealing with such action?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply. I would refer to the answer given on the 2nd November to the hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe. In the circumstances it is not proposed to introduce, during the present Session, legislation relating to trade combines, which would obviously require considerable time for discussion.

BRITISH MANUFACTURES (COST OF PRODUCTION).

Mr. LAMBERT: 35.
asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a small Commission, open to the Press, to ascertain how far the price of coal, increased railway charges, alleged trade union restrictions on output, double postage, high taxation, and other causes are so increasing the cost of production of British manufactured goods as to seriously restrict the demand for them?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): My right hon. Friend's suggestion will be considered by the Government.

WEST INDIES (IMPERIAL PREFERENCE).

Mr. G. MURRAY: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the British West Indian Colonies have recently granted a substantial preference on British-manufactured goods for a definite period of 10 years; whether, with a view to securing that these Colonies and other Crown Colonies and Protectorates
shall place as many orders as possible in this country, thus assisting unemployment, the Government will consider the desirability of guaranteeing the continuance of Imperial preference for a like period of 10 years by the introduction of a short Act of Parliament to this effect, thus eliminating the present uncertainty as to the value of the Imperial preference now granted to the Overseas possessions by reason of its being an annual measure embodied in the Finance Act, and so subject to abolition at very short notice?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that most of the West Indian Colonies have extended to the United Kingdom the benefits of the preferential tariff arranged with Canada for a period of ten years. Representations have been received that the preference accorded by the United Kingdom should be assured to these Colonies for a similar period, and this suggestion is now being carefully examined.

PRIVATE FIRMS (SALARIES).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of his statement in the House on 21st July, he is now able to publish the information he has collected showing the average rates of remuneration paid before the War and at the present time to the leading officials of the principal industrial and commercial concerns in the country?

Mr. YOUNG: No, Sir. The information already available on the subject is not sufficiently comprehensive to justify publication, but the question of issuing such a return will be borne in mind.

Sir W. de FRECE: Arising out of this question may I ask whether this information was specifically promised in the House as a guide to Civil Service Salaries, and when it will be forthcoming?

Mr. YOUNG: I think, if I remember aright, what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was, that he would see if he could obtain the information and if it was possible to publish it in the form of a Return.

EX-GERMAN SHIPS.

Mr. GILBERT: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether all the German ships allotted to this country
have now been sold; and if he will state the number of ships and tonnage which have been bought by British, Allied, and other buyers, and the total amount realised from the sale?

Mr. BALDWIN: Apart from vessels transferred to Allies under special agreements, 423 ex-German vessels in all have been allotted to this country for sale. 392 of these have already been delivered, and 31 are still to come. Of the 392 vessels delivered 385 have been sold, 4 are awaiting sale, and 3 were lost before sale. Of the 385 vessels sold, 326 (gross tonnage 1,494,000) were bought by British subjects, 11 (gross tonnage 27,000) by Allies, and 48 (gross tonnage 195,000) by others.

BUTTER (GOVERNMENT STOCKS).

Mr. GILBERT: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government still hold any stocks of butter; if so, approximately, what quantities, and if it is Colonial or from other countries; and what action his Department are taking to clear such stocks?

Mr. BALDWIN: Government stocks of butter, mainly from Australia and New Zealand, are disposed of to importers, without reserve as to quantity, at ex-store prices fixed weekly, on the basis of current market prices, after consultation with the trade. For reasons already given to the House, I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose the stock figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

CABLE INDUSTRY.

Mr. MILLS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are 100 ex-service cable-workers and 103 civilian workers in that industry registering as unemployed, in addition to many women usually engaged in the same industry, and that there is a shortage of cables on the trade routes and elsewhere; and if he will recommend to the Departments concerned the need for quicker decision as to renewals and development?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I have been asked to answer this question.
Orders for telegraph and telephone cables for renewal and development works are being placed as expeditiously as possible. I hope to be able to invite additional tenders for telephone cable at an early date.

Mr. MILLS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one instance quite near home is the cable communication between this country and the Western Isles of Scotland?

Mr. PEASE: I am very sympathetic to the case mentioned by the hon. Member, and I will look into it.

NEW COLLIERIES.

Major KELLEY: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the sinking of new collieries or the completion of sinkings interrupted during the War is among the works of public utility for which assistance may be given from the £25,000,000 fund which Parliament is now asked to authorise?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wednesday last to the hon. Baronet the Member for Wrexham.

TUBE RAILWAYS, LONDON.

Mr. ERSKINE: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will expedite the consideration by the Cabinet of Lord Ashfield's proposals for the extension of the system of transportation as outlined by him, in view of the fact that it would add no additional burden to the taxpayers and give immediate employment to thousands of men?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have given consideration to Lord Ashfield's proposals, and have informed him that they cannot promote legislation to give the protection against competition asked for. At the same time they have suggested to him the desirability of proceeding with these important works for the extension and improvement of London traffic facilities, both from the point of view of their permanent value and the great assistance they would give in relief of the problem of unemployment. The matter is still under discussion with Lord Ashfield.

BANKS (CREDIT FACILITIES).

Mr. MILLS: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have made any recommendation to the banks to the effect that they should extend better credit facilities to merchants, manufacturers, and traders generally, with a view to increasing employment; and, if so, whether the Government have received any communication from any of the banks in reply?

Mr. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise. I feel confident that, with money as easy as it has been of late, the banks, who are fully alive to the urgency of the unemployment problem, have not been refusing credit unduly.

Mr. MILLS: In view of the magnificent way in which banks were treated in 1914, does not the hon. Gentleman see his way to put pressure on them to help to provide employment in this particular juncture?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is there any ground for the allegation that banks are not giving credit to those who are willing to give employment?

Mr. YOUNG: My hon. Friend will find that I have dealt with that point in the last part of my answer.

MACHINE TOOL TRADE.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the firm of James Archdale and Company, Limited, Birmingham, machine tool makers, who in normal times employ 500 men, are now only employing 240 men three days a fortnight and that the firm attributes this state of things largely to sales of Government machinery at excessively low prices; and whether he will consider the advisability of holding up further sales so as to avoid increasing unemployment in the machine tool trade of the country?

Mr. JAMES WILSON: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the sales of surplus Government machine tools is adversely effecting trade and employment in the machine tool-making industry; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of suspending further sales until trade conditions generally have improved?

Mr. YOUNG: With regard to Messrs. Archdale and Company, I have no information. I am advised that sales of machine tools by the Disposal Board are being made by auction and tender subject to reserve prices, and that good prices are being obtained. For the reason stated in my reply of the 25th October to the hon. and gallant Member for Basing-stoke, it is not considered advisable to depart from the present policy of selling surplus stores.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present parlous state of this industry in this country is very largely due to the outrageous prices which are being charged by machine tool makers in this country?

Mr. YOUNG: No, Sir, my information does not bear out that.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Your information is wrong.

Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that the majority of these machine tools at the Disposal Board are being sold at breaking-up prices, thereby ruining the industry?

Mr. YOUNG: No, Sir. On the contrary, my information is to the effect that the prices being obtained by the Disposal Board are good prices.

LAND RECLAMATION (SCOTLAND).

Major W. MURRAY: 73.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the unemployed in Scotland tend to remove to the cities and country towns, and whether, in connection with the proposals under consideration for special assistance to those undertaking land drainage and reclamation, he can by any means remove the difficulties obstructing burgh councils from reclaiming land out-with their boundaries for the relief of unemployment?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison): With regard to the first part of the question, I have no definite information, but I think it probable that in some cases there may be a movement such as that indicated. As regards the second part of the question, legislation would be required if the powers of town councils to acquire land compulsorily were to be extended, and this is not contemplated in the meantime. I would, however, remind my hon. and gallant Friend of
the powers of compulsory acquisition of land for reclamation contained in the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, which may suffice for the purpose which he has in view.

MINES (SUBSIDENCE).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 12.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government have now decided on their proposed legislation with regard to compensation for subsidence in mining districts; and whether the Bill will be introduced this Session in order that it may be fully considered during the Recess and passed into law next Session?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I cannot add anything at present to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 11th August last. The Bill cannot be introduced this Session.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is two years or three years since this promise was given?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir.

MINING INDUSTRY ACT (PART II).

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines the result of his negotiations with the mine owners in regard to Part II of the Mining Industry Act; and at what date is this part of the Act to become operative?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret to have to state that the council of the Mining Association have recently passed a resolution by a large majority to the effect that they are unwilling to co-operate in working Part II of the Mining Industry Act. I have expressed my views to them, both orally and by letter, but so far have been unsuccessful in convincing them that it is in the interests of themselves and of the industry as a whole that they should reconsider this decision, and they represent that it is now my duty to report to Parliament under Section 17 that this Part of the Act has been rendered abortive. I cannot accept the view that this declaration of intention renders the provisions of Part II "abortive" in the sense contemplated by Section 17. Those provisions can be neither operative nor abortive until the necessary Regulations
have been made to enable effect to be given to them. The conditions of the industry since the passing of the Act have, until recently, made it impossible to frame these Regulations, but they are now in draft, and I propose to issue them at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. LEWIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing the correspondence?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes. I should be very glad to publish it if it is the wish of the House that it should be published. I will consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as to the best way of publishing it.

ARGENTINE RAILWAYS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 16
(1) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has requested His Majesty's representative in the Argentine to make inquiries of the Argentine Government on the subject of what appears to be the confiscation of British investments in Argentina owing to the partial repudiation by the Argentine Government of the obligations it undertook under the Mitre Law to British shareholders in Argentine railways; whether a reply has been received; if so, whether he will, when he has communicated that reply to the House, for ward it to the United States Government for their information;
(2) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that the export of British railway equipment to the Argentine must cease if the securities received by British subjects from the Argentine railways in payment for such exports are rendered valueless by the action of the Argentine Government in refusing honour its obligations under the Mitre Law; and whether he will take steps to deal with the position set up by the Argentine Government;
(3) whether there is a commercial attaché or other British Government official working in connection with the British Legation at Buenos Ayres in the interests of British commerce; and, if so, will he state whether that official, prior to the subject being raised in this House, took any action on his own initiative, or
at the request of British commercial interests, to investigate the allegations of maltreatment by the Argentine Government of British capital invested in Argentine railways.

Sir R. NEWMAN: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the function of the British Foreign Office to take steps to protect British commercial interests in foreign countries when it has reason to believe that British commercial interests have received unfair treatment at the hands of foreign governments; and, if so, will he state whether he has made any representations to the Argentine Government with regard to that Government's treatment of British money invested in the development of the Argentine railways?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As I stated in answer to a question from the hon. Member for St. George's on the 31st ultimo, His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres is furnishing a full report on the situation. This report is on its way, and may be expected to arrive shortly. As soon as it arrives it will be given the earnest consideration of His Majesty's Government, but until that is done there is no further information which I can usefully give the hon. Members.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman publish the report when it arrives at Buenos Ayres, if it arrives when the House has risen?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that is entirely conditional.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that half the mileage of the Argentine railways was made after the Mitre Law was passed, and on the faith of that law, and will he consider just claims of British capitalists?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am well aware of the great importance of the matter.

Mr. MANVILLE: Is the policy of the Foreign Office in reference to the action of its diplomatic representatives abroad to be reversed in future, in view of the fact that these representatives have not been greatly interested in commercial
matters, whereas other countries, such as Germany, have made use of their diplomatic representatives in many different ways?

Mr. SAMUEL: Have not the manufacturers in this country always had a grievance against the general policy of the Foreign Office, which has never been used to advance their interests in foreign countries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is entirely contrary to my experience.

WHEAT AND OATS (SUBSIDY).

Mr. A. HERBERT: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the question of granting pay for corn cultivation of fractions of an acre this year in accordance with the pledge of the Agriculture Act; and whether he is prepared to introduce fresh legislation to carry out the intentions of Parliament in passing the Agriculture Act?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The Agriculture Act, 1920, did not amend the provisions of Section 1 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, which governs the question of payment in respect of fractions of an acre. There is no question, therefore, of any pledge on the subject having been contained in the Agriculture Act, and the answer to the second part of the question is, therefore, in the negative.

Mr. HERBERT: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman, from the point of view of equity, try to do what he can in this matter, as it is inflicting grave hardship on a number of small people?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that I have already explained to the House that I referred the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown, who replied that I have no authority to pay for fractions of an acre under the Corn Production Act of 1917.

Mr. HURD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman a means by which we can get round the Act?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am afraid that I do not know any means of getting round the Act.

NATIONALITY LAW.

Sir W. DAVISON: 26.
asked the Prime Minister what replies have now been received from the Dominion Governments with regard to the necessary amendment of the law to secure British nationality for the children of foreign-born British subjects, as recommended by the Dominion Prime Ministers at the recent Imperial Conference; and whether he expects to be in a position to introduce the necessary legislation in the matter at the beginning of next Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: No replies have yet been received from the Dominion Governments in this matter. I cannot make any statement as to legislation thereon next Session. The matter was brought before the Conference and they unanimously adopted the suggestion made and we are now awaiting replies from the Dominion Governments in the matter. I am anticipating favourable replies. The methods adopted depend on legislation in the Dominions.

Sir W. DAVISON: May we take it that the unanimous opinion of the Dominion Prime Ministers has been conveyed to the Dominions in connection with the Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. We have communicated the decisions of the Conference. As a matter of fact, we have circulated a draft Bill for approval.

BRITISH DECORATIONS (FOREIGN CIVILIANS).

Mr. A. HERBERT: 27.
asked the Prime Minister how many foreign civilians have the two British decorations of the G.C.B. and G.C.M.G., and for what services they have been awarded these decorations?

The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I have been able to ascertain, this distinction has not been conferred on any foreign civilian.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Basil Zaharoff has had these two honours?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: That is so. Why have these honours been given to this individual?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether he has received them or not.

Mr. HERBERT: If these honours have been conferred on Sir Basil Zaharoff, have they been conferred for the money that he has lent us?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman had better put down on the Paper any suggestion which he has to make.

OVERSEA SETTLEMENT.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the possible materialisation of large Empire settlement schemes in Australia and other Dominions, and with a view to giving Labour a greater share in the supervision and conduct of any emigration arrangements, he will consider, in consultation with the leader of the Labour party, the question of reinforcing the Oversea Settlement Committee by the addition of further Labour representatives?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I have been asked to reply. My hon Friend raised this question in his speech in Committee on 3rd November, and I would refer him to the assurances which I gave in the concluding part of my speech on the same day. The matter will be discussed with the Chairman of the Oversea Settlement Committee on his return.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Sir J. D. REES: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether any Bill is contemplated rendering conscientious objectors and others of military age who avoided military service during the country's peril in the Great War ineligible as candidates for public offices?

Mr. YOUNG: In view of the policy of the Government to give the greatest possible preference to ex-service men in selecting candidates for Government employment, it is not considered that any such legislation is necessary.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the Government aware of the intense indignation felt at the participation in the government of
this country of men who would have seen it a Prussian province rather than risk their skins for it?

Mr. YOUNG: I am well aware of the feeling that exists. I would refer the hon. Member to the notice on the Paper to-day relating to the Select Committee which it is proposed to set up.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Is it possible by Order in Council to get rid of these conscientious objectors from Government employment?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

LAW AND ORDER.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Notice of Motion relating to India standing in the names of the hon. Member for Twickenham and others—["That this House views with. grave concern the present state of India, and urges upon His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to re-establish law and order in that country"]—and when he will give a day for its discussion?

The LEADER of the HOUSE (Mr. Chamberlain): As this question relates to the business of the House, my hon. Friend will not be surprised if I answer it. I have seen the Notice of Motion, to which, in view both of the importance of the subject and the number of signatures attached to it, His Majesty's Government have given careful consideration. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would be good enough to confer with me before taking further action.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will it be convenient for my right hon. Friend to see myself and two or three of my friends this afternoon?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; I am at my hon. Friend's disposal immediately after questions.

BASANTE KUMAR BOY.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will take steps to see that Basante Kumar Roy, described in the Press as de Valera's emissary to India, is not granted per-
mission to return from America to India in the same manner as permission was granted to Lajpat Rai?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): If my right hon. Friend has occasion to deal with any application for permission to return to India, he will consult the Government of India as to the best method of doing so.

AUXILIARY FORCE.

Sir C. YATE: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for India what was the total number of men enlisted in the Indian Auxiliary Force up to the 30th September, 1921, at the end of the first year of the existence of this force; and what is the estimated number of men in the country available for enlistment who have so far refused to enlist voluntarily?

Major BARNSTON: The total number of men enrolled in the Auxiliary Force up to 30th September was 29,750, and my present information is that the strength of the force now exceeds 30,000. As regards the second part of the question, the number of men available cannot be accurately gauged, as availability is dependent on occupation and other causes.

PROSECUTION (BHAGALPUR).

Sir C. YATE: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for India who were the local officials of Bhagalpur who were responsible for the prosecution of Mr. Grant in the case in which the court entirely exonerated Mr. Grant, and animadverted upon the unsatisfactory manner in which the case had been investigated by the Bhagalpur authorities; and what steps have been taken by the Government of India in the matter?

Major BARNSTON: The Government of Bihar and Orissa rightly took a very serious view of the murder by villagers of Gurkha watchmen engaged by Mr. Grant and instituted these prosecutions. The persons accused of taking part in the assault on the Gurkhas were charged with murder, riot and dacoity; the Messrs. Grant with organising an unlawful assembly; and the Gurkhas and villagers who accompanied them with forming an unlawful assembly. My right hon. Friend has not received a report of the judgment, which, he understands, entirely exonerated the Messrs. Grant.
The case was one in which a full magisterial inquiry was very desirable. My right hon. Friend does not know that the Government of India has taken any action.

LITHUANIA (MEMEL).

Mr. LAMBERT: 36.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to hand over the port of Memel to Lithuania, having regard to the fact that on the 16th June, 1919, the Allied and Associated Powers rejected the contention of Germany that Memel should remain under German sovereignty and affirmed that the port of Memel was the only sea outlet for Lithuania?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: By Article 99 of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany renounced in favour of the principal Allied and Associated Powers all rights and title over this territory. No decision has yet been reached regarding its eventual allocation.

Mr. LAMBERT: As the matter has been hanging over for two years, when may the Lithuanian Government expect to receive a decision?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that nothing will be done by the British Government to coerce or to bring pressure to bear upon the Government and people of Northern Ireland with a view to forcing them into surrendering any of the territory or rights granted to them by the Government of Ireland Act?

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 43.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any information to the effect that the representations of Sinn Fein are prepared to abandon the claim for Irish independence, provided that the Government consents to make certain modifications of the Constitutions set up by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, in the direction of reducing the area under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or of changing the Constitution and powers
of the Council of Ireland; and whether, seeing that such a proposal, if made, would be an example of the device of putting forward impossible demands in order to use their subsequent withdrawal as a means to extort concessions which would not otherwise be considered, he can give an assurance that under no circumstances will the Cabinet be induced by the employment of this device, or otherwise, to consent to any change in the powers of, or the extent of territory subject to, the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or in the constitution of the Council of Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House by an overwhelming majority has confirmed the decision of the Government to enter the Conference, and in the course of the Debate the position of the Government was again stated by myself and the Leader of the House. But no Conference could proceed if each fresh rumour as to its discussions or as to the attitude of the Members taking part in it were to be made the subject of Parliamentary question and answer. I must therefore very respectfully urge my hon. Friends not to press their questions.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not repeat to the House the definite assurance which he has again and again given, that under no circumstances would Ulster be coerced or pressed to surrender anything which she had been given by the Government of Ireland Act?

Mr. McNEILL: As the right hon. Gentleman has replied to my question also, while I very gladly accede to his request not to press it further at present, I would ask, does he realise that Question 43 is based upon an anxiety which is very generally shared by many of his most loyal supporters?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I do realise that, and so do all my colleagues.

Mr. GWYNNE: In the course of his speech a day or two since when the right hon. Gentleman induced many Members to follow him into the Lobby, did the right hon. Gentleman not say that, whatever else happened, Ulster would not be coerced?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly the same question put to me in a different form.

SINN FEIN COURTS.

Mr. R. GWYNNE: 77.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a Sinn Fein court was held at Kinsale on 1st September, 1921, at which a woman who kept a public-house was fined for refusing to allow the Irish Republican Army police on her premises; whether the date of the meeting of the court was known to the military authorities at Kinsale, as well as the fact that this case was to come on for hearing; whether instructions were issued by the authorities that the court was not to be interfered with; and whether, since the authorities thereby precluded themselves from protecting the accused woman, he will say in what way such persons summoned before Sinn Fein courts receive protection?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am informed that a Sinn Fein court was held at Kinsale on the 1st September, but that, though the authorities were aware that a court was summoned to meet on that day, they had no knowledge that a case of this kind, involving as it does a breach of the truce, would be dealt with. In regard to the last part of the question, the protection of the Crown forces will be accorded to any person claiming the same against any attempted interference with his personal liberty or property by an illegal court.

Colonel ASHLEY: May we take it that the Government encourages and approves of Sinn Fein courts unless there is some grave intimidation practised?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No.

Colonel ASHLEY: What Sinn Fein courts does the Government approve of?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I thought I had answered that. The only courts the Government approves of are courts legally held. If a court that is an arbitration court is held, whether it is held by Sinn Feiners or Loyalists, the Government is bound to approve of it, because it is a legal court, in Ireland or in England.

Colonel ASHLEY: Then if similar courts are set up in the Communist district of Glasgow, does the Government approve of it?

Mr. GWYNNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to see to the money being refunded to this woman from whom it was taken illegally?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, I undertake, if this woman has been illegally fined, to recoup her.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: What punishments are meted out to breakers of the truce every day?

WORKHOUSE, BALLYSHANNON.

Mr. MARRIOTT: 78.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the workhouse at Bally-shannon has been occupied by the Irish Republican Army; whether an armed sentry was posted at the gate; whether he can inform the House for what purpose the workhouse has been so occupied; and what steps he has taken in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The matter has been taken up with the Chief Sinn Fein Liaison Official, but I am not yet in a position to inform the House of the result.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Will breakers of the truce be punished in this case, and, if so, what punishment will be meted out?

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: Is this a part of the "honourable understanding between men of honour"?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I consider it a breach of the truce, and I must take the only remedy that I am allowed to take under the truce.

Sir R. HALL: How many breaches of the truce will be necessary before it is borne in on the right hon. Gentleman that the honourable understanding no longer exists?

CORONER'S JURY, ENNIS.

Mr. MARRIOTT: 79.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of a coroner's inquiry into the death of Michael Brooks at Ennis on 26th October, where the jurors objected to the form of oath and, in deference to this objection, the words "our Sovereign Lord the King" were expunged by the coroner; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The facts of this case are substantially as stated in the question. There were other irregularities in connection with the summoning of the jury, and as one member of the jury left immediately after the oath was administered, the inquest was not proceeded with, and a military court of inquiry in lieu of inquest will be held. The coroner has been asked to give an explanation.

PRISONER (RELEASE).

Colonel BURN: 80.
asked the Chief Secretary whether on 8th August, 1921, a man named Foley, one of a party of armed rebels, was captured in Bandon while seizing a motor car belonging to the wireless station, Royal Irish Constabulary; whether he was in possession of a revolver and dum-dum ammunition; whether he was tried by field-general court-martial and convicted; whether subsequently two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were kidnapped; and whether Foley was then released in exchange for the kidnapped constables?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Foley was arrested, not in the act of seizing a car belonging to the Royal Irish Constabulary, but in the course of a search for a car which had been seized by Sinn Feiners some time before. As he was found to be in possession of a revolver and two rounds of ammunition, he was tried and sentenced as stated. As the result of further enquiries into all the circumstances, the Commander-in-Chief, while confirming the finding, decided to remit the term of imprisonment imposed. As regards the kidnapping of the constables referred to, it had been represented that this was an act of retaliation for the arrest of Foley which Sinn Fein regarded as a breach of the truce; Foley was accordingly not set at liberty until an undertaking had been given that the constables would be immediately released.

Colonel BURN: Was not this man in possession of dum-dum bullets?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sorry that the answer does not deal with that point, but I will see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman gets an answer on that specific point.

Sir W. DAVISON: On whom does the decision rest as to whether or not the truce has been broken?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Each case stands by itself. No one regrets more than I do any breach of the truce, but, under the terms of the truce, they must be dealt with in the way contemplated, or by force. I believe that it is my duty to deal with them in the way contemplated by the truce.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will the Government do something more than regret breaches of the truce?

Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what Clause in the truce—for I see none—deals with a breach of the truce?

ATTACK ON CONSTABLE.

Viscount CURZON: 81.
asked the Chief Secretary whether Constable M'Carthy, Royal Irish Constabulary, was fired at and seriously wounded in the village of Baltinglass, County Wicklow, on Sunday, 30th October last; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: On the night of 30th October last Constable M'Carthy received a revolver bullet wound. The circumstances in which he was wounded are at present obscure. Until I have received the report of the inquiries by the police that are now proceeding, I regret I cannot give the House any further information in regard to this case.

Viscount CURZON: How long is it likely to take the right hon. Gentleman to get this Report? Will it be available before the House rises?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes; I can promise that.

Viscount WOLMER: May I ask whether the Government consider these cases to be mere details?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: They certainly do not. This is considered a very grave matter indeed.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Was this a breach of the truce?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The police authorities are inquiring into the case, and it is obscure as to how this man came by his wounds. He was wounded at night by a revolver shot. I cannot say more until I get a report from my policemen?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: How many breakers of the truce have been punished?

MOTOR CARS (SEIZURE).

Viscount CURZON: 82.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that during the truce the so-called Commandant John Hales, 1st Battalion, 3rd West Cork Brigade, of the Irish Republican Army, was using a Ford car, the property of Colonel Lucas, which had been stolen; whether on the 8th August the police stopped and seized the car; whether Hales thereupon took possession of another car belonging to a loyalist named Shorter; and what steps have been taken in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first, second, and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. Mr. Shorter's car was returned five or six weeks ago.

Viscount CURZON: How much longer have we got to put up with this damned nonsense?

Mr. W. THORNE: That is from a Noble Lord, and not a docker.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is an improper expression.

Viscount CURZON: I beg your pardon, Sir, but my feelings are very strong.

Mr. J. JONES: I was chucked out the other night for less than that.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman will set a good example to the Noble Lord.

KIDNAPPING, BELFAST.

Sir W. DAVISON: (by Private Notice)asked the Chief Secretary whether the police in Belfast last night raided a yard in Kent Street, where they found a loyalist citizen under sentence of death in charge of three armed Sinn Fein guards; whether a wireless installation and other military plant were captured at the same time; and what steps he is taking to protect loyal citizens of Belfast and elsewhere in Ireland from being kidnapped and condemned to death?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Mr. Arthur W. Hunt was kidnapped by armed men who styled themselves members of the Irish Republican Army on the 22nd ult. The
police got information of his whereabouts last night, surrounded the house, forced an entrance, and found him in charge of three armed civilians. Mr. Hunt, who believed himself to be under sentence of death, was released, and his guards were arrested. There was also discovered a wireless installation and other military material. As regards the last part of the question, Belfast is under the control of the military authorities. Any further steps that may be required will be taken after consultation with the responsible authorities concerned, including the Government of Northern Ireland.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the men who proposed to execute this loyal citizen will be punished?

Captain S. WILSON: They will be released!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: These men are under arrest, and they will be dealt with in the ordinary way.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether three loyal citizens were not recently murdered at the dead of night by special constables in Dublin, whether the men who committed this crime have been brought to justice, and whether there has been any protest from the other side against the murder of these innocent men?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

ALBANIA.

Lord R. CECIL: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any further information about Albania; and, in particular, whether any action has been taken under the Covenant of the League of Nations to prevent the neighbours of that country from attacking her?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to the latest reports from His Majesty's representative in Albania, the Jugo-Slav forces have now occupied Lurya and Oroshi and are continuing to advance. The Conference of Ambassadors, at their meeting on Saturday, were able to come to an agreement as to the frontiers of Albania, and these frontiers will at once be notified to the interested parties. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Government will then be summoned to withdraw their forces from
Albanian territory. His Majesty's Government have meanwhile taken steps formally to recognise the Government at Tirana as the de jure Government of the whole of Albania.
As regards the last part of my Noble Friend's question, I understand that the Albanian Government have now addressed a further appeal to the League of Nations. It is to be hoped that, in face of the decision now come to by the Ambassadors Conference, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government will instruct their forces to withdraw. The situation is, however, of so serious a nature that His Majesty's Government have called upon the Secretary General of the League of Nations to summon an immediate meeting of the Council in order that they may consider the application of Article 16 to the present situation, and may agree upon the measures to be taken in the event of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government continuing to evade their obligations under the Covenant.

Lord R. CECIL: With the permission of the House, I should like to express my warm gratitude to my hon. Friend.

Sir J. D. REES: Will not this matter come before the greater League of Nations at Washington?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that old age pensions have sometimes to be refused to persons residing in the United Kingdom if previously they resided in some other part of the British Dominions; whether, in order to remove this hardship, he will introduce in the current Session legislation to provide that any such previous residence in any part of those Dominions shall, in the case of claimants resident in the United Kingdom, be regarded as residence in the United Kingdom; whether a similar hardship is involved in any old age pension scheme of any other of those Dominions; and, if so, whether he will communicate with the Dominion Governments concerned with a view to their extending favourable treatment on similar lines, mutatis mutandis, to persons residing in those Dominions who previously resided in the United Kingdom?

Mr. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. One of the statutory conditions for the receipt of an old age pension by any person is that the person has had his residence in the United Kingdom—

(1) if a natural-born British subject, for an aggregate period of not less than 12 years since attaining the age of 50; and
(2) if a naturalised British subject, for an aggregate period of 20 years,

subject to the proviso that periods of absence from the United Kingdom may in certain special circumstances (namely, service abroad under the Crown, etc.) be counted as residence in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regrets that he does not see his way to introduce legislation in the current Session to provide that previous residence in any part of the British Dominions shall, in the case of claimants resident in the United Kingdom, be regarded as residence in the United Kingdom.
The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that under the Australian Old Age Pensions Act a person is not entitled to an old age pension unless he has resided in Australia for 20 years. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any proposals that may be made by the Dominion Governments concerned in the sense suggested.

Mr. DEVLIN: In considering this matter, will the hon. Gentleman see whether next Session there is any possibility of dealing with the whole of the recommendations of the Old Age Pensions Committee which sat last year?

Mr. YOUNG: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. LYLE: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in assessing the income of candidates for old age pensions, the Treasury takes into consideration, and if so, why, the assistance given to such claimants by friends on whom rests no legal liability to show such compassion and sympathy?

Mr. YOUNG: Assistance received by claimants to old age pensions from friends is required, by Section 2 (1) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, to be
taken into account in calculating the means of the claimants for the purpose of determining the rate of pension (if any) to which they are entitled, notwithstanding that there is no legal liability on the friends to give such assistance.

Sir R. ADKINS: Was not that modified last year?

Mr. YOUNG: No, Sir.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is not this the same restriction as was applied in regard to pre-War pensioners, and does the hon. Gentleman not know it is exceedingly disliked by every one of them?

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many British blind people over the age of 50 are now, by recent legislation, in receipt of old age pensions owing to their inability to follow their employment; what percentage of those over 50 is represented by such recipients; and whether, in all cases, steps are taken to bring it home to such blind persons that they are qualified for the pension if they fulfil the conditions?

Mr. YOUNG: On the 30th September last there were in the United Kingdom 12,633 blind persons in receipt of old age pensions under the provisions of Section 1 of the Blind Persons Act, 1920. In Great Britain the number was approximately 72 per cent. of the number of registered blind persons between the ages of 50 and 70. I regret that a percentage for Ireland is not available. With regard to the last part of the question, steps were taken to bring these provisions to the notice of all agencies and institutions for the blind, and a public notice appeared in the Press.

Mr. G. BARNES: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having that notice posted in the offices?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes. I shall take that suggestion into consideration.

SIR BASIL THOMSON.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is yet possible to state the name of the
successor in office to Sir Basil Thomson; and, if not, whether the appointment will be made before the House rises?

The PRIME MINISTER: No successor has yet been appointed. The position is an important one and the Government are anxious, if possible, to secure the services of someone who acquired experience and distinction in that branch of work during the War. I cannot say whether we can succeed in doing so before the House rises, but we are losing no time in making the necessary inquiries.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that a successor was appointed, and that Police Regulation No. 31 stated that General Sir Joseph Byrne was in charge of the Department under its new name? Was that not a document signed by General Horwood?

The PRIME MINISTER: Notice ought to be given to me of that question. My knowledge of the facts only leads me to the conclusion that General Byrne was invited, that the position was offered to him, but had not been accepted, and I also understand that it had not received the approval of the Treasury.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In view of the communistic rejoicings over the departure of Sir Basil Thomson, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the desirability of reinstating Sir Basil Thomson in a post from which he was dismissed after a long period of distinguished service?

Viscount CURZON: Who in the meantime is in charge of the secret funds?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that notice ought to be given of that question. I do not know anything about the organisation of the Department.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement by Sir Basil Thomson in the Press to-day, which, if it be true, shows that the information of the Home Secretary the other day was entirely inaccurate?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: If General Byrne had not been appointed, why was he allowed to have access to the secret funds?

The PRIME MINISTER: I really think that if I am to be examined about details
of that kind, notice ought to be given to me. I really cannot give an answer as to details of administration in all Departments of the State.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would not arise from the question on the Paper.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the Prime Minister states that it is not within his knowledge, but it is within the knowledge of one of his subordinates, surely it is in order to ask the Minister who is sitting there on the Front Bench?

Mr. SPEAKER: It really does not arise from the question on the Paper.

Mr. W. THORNE: Why all the row about the dismissal of this one man?

MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Sir J. D. REES: 44.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether the International Court of Justice will have jurisdiction in cases of maritime international law; and whether in that event Great Britain will be under the necessity of accepting the findings of a body of international jurists upon questions such as those with which the Declaration of London proposed to deal?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice will extend to all cases of maritime international law which are submitted to it by the parties to the dispute. Such submission to the court may be made either by a special agreement between the parties relating to the particular dispute in question or as the result of a general agreement for the reference of such questions to the court. Machinery for the reference of all disputes to the court is contained in the Optional Clause which is attached to the Protocol for bringing the Statute of the Permanent Court into existence, and States which have signed that Optional Clause will be bound to submit to the Permanent Court their disputes with other States relating to maritime international law. The United Kingdom has not signed the Optional Clause, and, therefore, so far as United Kingdom is concerned, no case relating to mari-
time international law will come before the Permanent Court of International Justice unless the Government agree so to refer it. If at any time the Government should agree to refer any particular dispute to the court, it will, of course, be necessary to accept the decision which is rendered.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the substance of that answer that the Foreign Office will not agree to submit the vital questions of maritime power to this tribunal?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am afraid that the United Kingdom, not having signed the Optional Clause, no case will be submitted to the international court unless the Government of the day so refer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

OFFICE OF WORKS.

Mr. RAPER: 48.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that a surveyor in the Directorate of Works, a Mr. C. V. Cable, Lic. R.I.B.A., F.S.I., an ex-service man, married, and with a family dependent, has been recently discharged, and that a Mr. Wrennell, also a surveyor, but who has no degrees, is single, and a non-service man, has been retained, in spite of the protests raised by the ex-service representatives; whether the First Commissioner will take steps to have Mr. Cable reinstated in his place; and if the First Commissioner will, in view of the number of temporary technical non-service staff employed in the Office of Works, cause a substitution committee to he set up to deal with the technical staff on the lines recommended by the Lytton Committee, and which has already been done in the case of the clerical staff?

Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the answer:—
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the circumstances were somewhat exceptional. The particular work upon which both gentlemen were engaged was, by the restriction of the housing programme carried out by the Department, suddenly and greatly curtailed. A careful review of the situa-
tion led to the conclusion that if Mr. Wrennell, who had been in charge of the work from the beginning, were retained, he would be able without further assistance to complete the work satisfactorily. Any other arrangement would, it was considered, have meant that the work would be performed less efficiently and at greater cost.
I should also explain that Mr. Wrennell attested voluntarily in 1916, but in view of his low medical category was granted exemption from military service so long as he was engaged on work of national importance, and was retained during the later stages of the War at the instance of the Department. Mr. Cable's military service extended from February, 1918, to December, 1919, during which time he was employed in the Lands Directorate of the War Office with the honorary rank of captain. The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to reinstate Mr. Cable in Mr. Wrennell's place.
In spite of the fact that the percentage of ex-service men in the temporary technical staff of the Department is as high as 70, consideration has for some time been given to the desirability of setting up a substitution committee on the lines recommended in the Lytton Report, with a view to improving this figure, and I am able to inform the hon. Member that such a committee is already in process of formation. It is doubtful, however, whether it will be possible to reach so high a percentage as in the temporary clerical staff, where it is already 87 per cent., and will shortly be increased to 95 per cent.

DIAMOND CUTTING.

Mr. EVANS: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the hardship which is being caused to certain disabled ex-service men, who were placed in training in diamond-cutting at a factory at Wrexham, owing to the closing of that factory; whether there is any prospect of enabling these men to continue such training in another place; and, if not, whether he will direct that they be immediately given training in some other trade?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The disabled men who were being trained in diamond-cutting at the Wrexham factory cannot, I am afraid, be
offered continuance of this training. In the special circumstances, it has been decided that these men may be granted further training in another trade, provided that they are still eligible. Each man has been so informed.

Mr. C. THOMAS-STANFORD: Does the same apply to the discharged men in the diamond-cutting factory at Brighton?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir, and each man there has been so informed.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. ERSKINE: 72.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Major Osborne is employed at the Ministry of Pensions Hospital, Denmark Hill, in the capacity of Controller, at a salary of £520 plus his retired pay of major; that Miss Osborne, his daughter, is employed in his office as clerk, a position that could be filled by an ex-service man; and that Mrs. Lackey, another daughter, is employed in the dispensary, a position which could also be filled by an ex-service man; and what he proposes to do in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Miss Osborne is an ex-service woman and is employed not as a clerk, but in a non-substitutable post. It is understood that Mrs. Lackey is dependent upon her earnings for her own support and that of her son, aged 11. Her case has, however, recently been considered by the local substitution committee, who have recommended her discharge.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Is it a fact that Major Osborne had a rather specially distinguished career in the Army and is very specially fit for the office to which he was appointed?

Major TRYON: I must express my regret that the Anti-Waste League should have associated itself with an attack on an officer who has got 35 years' service in the R.A.M.C., 15 years in South Africa, and 5 years of active service in France. I should have thought it might have protected him from the criticism of the Anti-Waste League.

Mr. ERSKINE: I must correct a misapprehension. The Anti-Waste League had nothing to do with it.

Captain LOSEBY: Does my hon. and gallant Friend consider that his rhetorical reply answered the fact that this is a violation of the undertaking given to put into effect the Lytton Report dealing with the substitution of ex-service men for women?

Major TRYON: The employment of a gallant officer who served for 35 years is not in violation of any pledge to substitute men for women; and his daughter, who is continuing to be employed, is an ex-service woman and is not depriving any man who has similar qualifications.

Captain LOSEBY: Is it not a fact that Major, Osborne himself is responsible for these appointments?

HYDE PARK (BATHING SCREEN).

Mr. ERSKINE: 49.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can state the intention of the First Commissioner in regard to the proposed bathing screen in Hyde Park?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am glad to make a statement on a subject which has given rise to misapprehension. In view of grave complaints from the public and the police, it is proposed to raise an easy and almost imperceptible gradient from below the Rotten Row footpath towards the Serpentine, which will screen off the ground, extending to within 50 yards of the footpath, now occupied by bathers when dressing and undressing. This will not mask the view of the lake, nor is it proposed to erect a tumulus or mound; and, in point of fact, the level of the existing turf will not be raised more than 33 inches at its maximum. The cost, estimated at £1,500, will be defrayed from sums already voted for park improvements to be executed by unemployed labourers, who are well suited for this type of work and who will be recruited through the Labour Exchanges.

ANCIENT MONUMENT (LONDON BRIDGE).

Sir M. CONWAY: 50.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Com-
missioner of Works, whether he proposes to take any steps, by scheduling under the Ancient Monuments Act or otherwise, to prevent the unnecessary destruction of the recently discovered arch of the mediaeval London Bridge; whether he will use his influence with the Bridge House Trust to obtain from it such small funds as may be needed to preserve it; and whether he will impress upon the owner of the site the great public importance of the monument in question?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Office of Works was anxious to preserve the notable ruins of old London Bridge, and approached the owners, who, however, were not prepared to incur the very heavy expenditure involved. The First Commissioner, moreover, regrets that the funds at his disposal made it impossible to contemplate a purchase, while a Preservation Order would suspend building operations now in progress for any period up to 18 months, during which time the Order would have to be confirmed by Parliament; and, as my Department could not guarantee such confirmation, it is possible that any such action might not succeed in preserving the archway.

Sir M. CONWAY: Will my hon. Friend answer the second part of my question, and state if he will use his influence with the Bridge House Trust to obtain such small funds as may be needed to preserve this arch. Will he also impress upon the Bridge House Trust that the employment of the small sum of money necessary for the preservation of a very important monument is obviously a duty, incumbent upon the Bridge House Trust?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no doubt my Noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works will take such action as is possible.

COST OF LIVING.

Mr. LYLE: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the Board of Trade index accepted by his Department in formulating the Estimates for next year, 1922–23?

Mr. YOUNG: I assume the hon. Member refers to the cost-of-living index figure, published by the Ministry of Labour, by reference to which the Civil Service bonus is determined. For the purpose of provisional Estimates for
1922–23 it has been assumed that the monthly index figures affecting the year ending the 31st March, 1923, will average 100 points above July, 1914.

EDUCATION (STAGE PLAYS).

Colonel NEWMAN: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a decision in the Law Courts that a theatre is not a place of educational interest within the meaning of the Education Act, and that the expenses incurred by the London education authority in sending children to theatres at the ratepayers' cost should be surcharged; will he say what is the sum involved; who is going to pay it; and have the ratepayers of the County of London previously made representations against the cost placed on them by the education authority in respect of these theatrical outings?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I am aware of the decision referred to. The auditor surcharged the whole of the expenditure involved in the provision of the stage plays in question, which amounted in the accounts of the county council for the year under review to £2,745. The surcharge was made on the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council, who, under the ruling of the Court, is legally liable for the amount. As regards the last part of the question, I am not aware of any representations on the subject having been made by ratepayers. The auditor took action on his own initiative.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that this unfortunate gentleman will have to pay out of his own pocket, although he was opposed altogether to the policy of the Education Committee?

Sir A. MOND: I should like notice of that. I do not know whether he has personally had to pay or not.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY ACTS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received the representation of the Staffordshire Association for the Care of the Mentally Defective regarding the
effect of the recent Treasury Circular on the limitations of the spending powers of local authorities on the treatment of urgent cases of mentally defective persons infected with venereal disease; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter with a view to ensuring that the limitations imposed will not prevent local authorities from dealing immediately with such cases?

Sir A. MOND: The representation referred to is receiving careful consideration in connection with the general question of the limitation of expenditure under the Mental Deficiency Acts necessitated by the decision of the Government that the public expenditure must be drastically reduced. Local authorities are at present only able to deal with urgent cases of the kind indicated if the expenditure involved can be met within the limits of their approved estimates for 1921–22.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman now see fit to recommend the repeal of the Mental Deficiency Acts?

Sir A. MOND: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the Government made a huge blunder in issuing this circular?

CIVIL SERVICE, ZANZIBAR (RUPEE EXCHANGE).

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that by the revised conditions of service in East Africa civil servants have been promised since April, 1920, salaries on the basis of 10 rupees to the £, plus 50 per cent., and that, owing to the value of-the rupee in Zanzibar being determined by the Indian exchange, civil servants there are only able to remit to England at an exchange materially worse than the rate stabilised in other East African dependencies; and if, in these circumstances, he will grant to civil servants in Zanzibar facilities in this respect equal to those enjoyed by civil servants in such other dependencies?

Mr. WOOD: I have already had under my consideration the position created in Zanzibar through the fall in the exchange value of the Indian rupee, and I decided
in August that, as a temporary measure with effect from the 1st January, 1921, the sterling salaries of European officials in Zanzibar should be issued at 15 rupees to the £, without local allowance, but that they should be permitted to make family remittances through the Crown Agents for the Colonies at the rate of 10 rupees to the £ up to half the amounts payable to them locally. This arrangement, in my opinion, sufficiently meets the difficulty mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ELECTRIC POWER CONCESSION.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Palestine Government have given a contract for the erection of a large plant for electric power supply to Mr. Rutenberg, a Russian Jew; whether tenders were obtained from other firms; and whether it is intended to employ Jewish labour in carrying out this work in exclusion of Palestinian labour?

Mr. WOOD: Mr. Rutenberg, acting by the consent and with the co-operation of the Zionist Organisation, applied to the Palestine Government for the grant of a concession for the utilisation of the waters of the Rivers Jordan and Yarmuk and other rivers in Palestine for generating electrical power, and for the distribution of that power throughout the country. The project was examined exhaustively, both by the Palestine Government and by the Colonial Office, and it was decided that it would be advantageous to Palestine and its population generally that the project should be carried out. An agreement has therefore been entered into with Mr. Rutenberg, by which the Palestine Government binds itself to grant him a concession subject to his fulfilling certain conditions. No other applications for such a concession have been received from other parties, and, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, apparently no other person or organisation was in a position to apply for such a concession, or to carry the project out satisfactorily. As regards the third part of the question, Mr. Rutenberg, so far from intending to exclude Palestinian labour, may be expected to give employment to Palestinians in large numbers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the Government providing any money?

Mr. WOOD: I would rather have notice of the exact terms of the arrangement.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not somewhat unfair to insinuate that a Jew has not just as much right to a concession in Palestine as anyone else?

ARAB DELEGATION.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to submit any conclusions at which he may arrive with the Arab delegation from Palestine for the approval of Parliament; and when and how it is proposed that the draft mandate for Palestine is to be dealt with by Parliament?

Mr. WOOD: No conclusions of the kind indicated in the first part of the question have yet been reached, and I think it would be premature for me to make any statement on the subject. With regard to the second part of the question, as the hon. Member is aware, the text of the draft mandate for Palestine has already been laid before the House. If the hon. Member wishes to ask for time for its discussion, I must refer him to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the Colonial Office any information as to who is paying the expenses of this Arab delegation?

Mr. WOOD: I have no precise information by me, but, of course, my hon. and gallant Friend knows that it is not an official delegation.

MILITARY TITLES.

Mr. SIMM: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, with a view to appreciating the value of military titles, he will restrict the use of such titles to persons who have served or are serving with the fighting forces, and that the titles attached to persons engaged solely in recruiting during the Great War or serving on jobs at home should be annulled, so that such persons shall not be confused with real soldiers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): It would not be practicable to make the distinctions the hon. Member suggests. The actual use of the title in civilian life is left to the taste and discretion of the individual officer.

Mr. DEVLIN: How many Members of Parliament call themselves "majors" or "colonels" who were never in the War?

Sir R. SANDERS: I must ask for notice of that question.

BUILDING TRADE WAGES (WAR OFFICE).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 84.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether consideration has been given to the memorial presented on behalf of all grades of building trade workmen employed at Enfield and Waltham that they should receive the same rates of wages as those employed at Woolwich; and, if so, will he state the result of such consideration?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The system of regulating the wages of workmen of the building works departments of the factories at Woolwich, Waltham, and Enfield was recently considered by the Industrial Court, who found that the operatives' claim had not been established. Arising out of that decision, I am considering whether any equalisation of rates as between the three factories is justified, and I hope that a decision will be reached shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEAR EAST.

FRANCE AND TURKEY.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports have been received with regard to the recent executions of 67 Greek and Armenian notables of Samsoun and Bafra by Kemalist bands; and with regard to the massacres and violation and deportation of women by the same bands at Marsovan; what steps the Government intend to take, in case of the departure of the French troops from Cilicia, to protect the Armenian and Greek population in that province from the alternatives of flight or massacre?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Turkish press has admitted the execution of Greeks in the Samsoun and Bafra districts. As regards massacres at Marsovan, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Consett on 26th October. Since then His Majesty's Government have received information that 950 Greeks and Armenians perished there in circumstances of barbarity. France is, under the Treaty of Sèvres and the Tripartite Agreement, the Power specially concerned with the protection of minorities in Cilicia, and His Majesty's Government are now discussing with the French Government the new Franco-Kemalist agreement. As these discussions are still proceeding, I cannot make any further statement at present in this House.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 100,000 people are preparing to fly from Cilicia if this is put back under the Turkish Government, and were not many of these people sent there by the authority of the British Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have had information, or a rumour, to that effect.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it possible to lay on the Table of this House a copy of the agreement between the Kemalists and France?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I hope that it will be possible, but, obviously, that cannot be done without conference with the French Government.

Lord R. CECIL: I will put a further question to-morrow.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman approach the Leader of the House with a view to having a statement on the question raised by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) and the whole of the Near East question on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and is he aware that there is a desire for such a Debate in all quarters of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That will arise on the next question.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I was just going to ask the question suggested by the Noble Lord opposite, and that is whether, in view of the change in the situation in the Near East by the Treaty concluded at
Angora between the Kemalist and the French Governments, and especially to the possible effects of this Treaty on the lives of the Greek, Armenian, and other Christian inhabitants of those regions, the Government will find a day for its discussion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not possible for me to find a day—a question has already been put on the same subject—within the limits of the time to which we hope to keep the present Session. I would venture to point out to hon. Gentlemen that, as stated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, discussions are still proceeding with the French Government, and it is obvious, therefore, that we cannot answer fully or really satisfy the purpose for which this Debate is desired if we have the Debate before this discussion has concluded.

Lord R. CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a very serious stigma on Parliamentary institutions if this House were to separate after a question of this gravity has been raised without any discussion on it at all, and would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consult the authorities of the House to see whether it would be possible to raise the question on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I put it to him, that with a full desire to respect the feelings and susceptibilities of France, and with a full desire to maintain the Entente between the two countries in the greatest interests of both, as to whether it would not be desirable to let the French people, as well as the French Government, know the feelings of apprehension which this Treaty has aroused among the people of this country, and especially amongst those for whom I have a right to speak, in regard to the absence of the guarantees for the saving of Christian lives, the destruction of which quite recently by the Turkish authorities has just been confirmed by the Under-Secretary?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will realise the reserve imposed upon a Government when conversations—I was going to say were still proceeding, but, I should say, have just begun—between
that Government and another Government in a matter of this kind. The anxiety with which this country must view sufferings of the kind is plainly manifest, and I certainly say that His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the considerations which my hon. Friends desire to bring before us. I hope that that will be sufficient to satisfiy hon. Members for the present. The anxiety of the House will have been shown by the questions which have been put to-day. I cannot help thinking that my Noble Friend opposite (Lord R. Cecil) was not quite right in his suggestion, and that the authority of Parliamentary institutions in this country is of a more robust kind than he sometimes thinks.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it not common knowledge—has it not been asserted from the Treasury Bench—that Parliamentary institutions are not in such a strong position as they were, and can the right hon. Gentleman give a single instance where any question of this kind has been seriously prejudiced by discussion in this House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Parliamentary institutions have lost something of their hold upon the public. That may be due in part to a certain incontinence of Parliament as well as to the needless Parliamentary participation in discussions of this kind. I do not for the moment remember any particular occasion where Parliamentary discussion in this House has prejudiced a matter of foreign affairs. On the other hand, I do not remember a Member of the House having refused to refrain from such a discussion where the Government of the day was in negotiation in a matter which was still incomplete.

Earl WINTERTON: Will my right hon. Friend, at any rate, on the Consolidated Fund discussion, make a statement of our position, the position of this country in the Near East, and is he aware that the anxiety on this side of the House is of a rather different nature to that on the other side—that is the serious, the most serious, military danger of our position in Irak—if the Treaty between the French and the Kemalists is as alleged? Can we, at any rate, have a statement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will, of course, consult the two authorities, first of all the authorities of the House to find out
whether such a statement will be in order, and also, secondly, I must consult my Noble Friend the Foreign Secretary as to whether he thinks it would be in the public interest to make such a statement at the moment. The terms of the agreement have only been communicated to the British Government within the last few days, and a discussion has just been begun between the two Governments. I very much doubt whether we can put the House in possession of further information at this stage of the conversations.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we have an assurance from the Government that the Treaty, as it appears in the Press, has no secret Clauses in addition, and, in particular, a secret clause authorising the French to hand over certain munitions of war to the Kemalist Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I answered a question about secret Clauses, of which notice was given, the other day. My hon. and gallant Friend might be so good as to refer to that answer.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: Were the Government not aware that a Treaty of this nature was imminent so far back as June last?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We were informed that negotiations were proceeding, but we were given an assurance as to the scope of those negotiations. That is all, I think, that can be properly stated at this moment.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not want to press my right hon. Friend in this situation—not in the least. But I think I am entitled to ask this question: Have we any reason to believe that the policy of the Government with regard to the liberation of the Christians under Turkish rule, and the determination of the Government never to allow them back under that rule—which has been made several times by Ministers, and in an eloquent speech by the Prime Minister—from which declarations the Government has never receded—still stands the policy of the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that I can go into specific declarations or exact terms, but I think I can say in general language that the purpose of the Government remains the same. Whether it has the capacity to carry through that
purpose to fulfilment may be more of an open question. The object of British policy has not changed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir F. BANBURY: (by Private Notice)asked the Leader of the House how far he proposes to proceed with the business of Supply to-night, and whether the House will have an opportunity of listening in the Debate to the explanation of the Home Secretary in regard to the cases of Sir Basil Thomson and Sir Joseph Byrne?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the business to-night, we propose to take the Committee stage of all the Supplementary Estimates. As regards the other question, my right hon. Friend has given me no notice of his intention to raise it, and I should be glad if he would give me notice in order that I might consult my right hon. Friend and hear what he proposes.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that you have not allowed me to ask a question of which I have given private notice with regard to the announcement in the Press that the Home Secretary was going to make an early statement, may I ask you if you have any knowledge when that statement will be made?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have no information as to the date.

Sir D. MACLEAN: If the Committee stage on the Supplementary Estimates be finished before 10 or 9.30 to-night, what other business do the Government propose to take? Are there any Lords Amendments to be taken?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In that case, we propose to take any Amendments which may come down from the other place on the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the statement to be made by the Home Secretary, as announced in the Press to-day?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

MR. W. JOHN, M.P.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling as to what a Member should do in the event of ascertaining that another hon. Member—the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. W. John)—has made a statement in the Press—

Mr. SPEAKER: A question on that point is to be put by another hon. Member.

Sir J. D. REES: Mr. Speaker, it is, I believe, the usual rule that any question of privilege should be raised as soon as possible after any breach of privilege has occurred. That, I hope, will be regarded as a sufficient excuse for my raising this matter, of which I only heard this morning, without previous notice to yourself. The hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. William John) is reported to have said as lately as Sunday afternoon
I should like to take some of the Rhondda miners to witness a Debate in the House of Commons, to see the wealthy land-lords coming up from their dining-rooms three-parts drunk. Some of them cannot stand, and some there are who have to hold on to their chairs in order to speak in the House of Commons.
—[Laughter.] I see nothing ludicrous in this—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a serious matter. The hon. Member will be good enough to address me, and not other hon. Members.

Sir J. D. REES: I apologise. That remark was provoked by some laughter opposite. I wish to ask you whether such a gross breach of privilege, making such scandalous and unauthorised charges against his brother Members, can be permitted to pass unrebuked and unpunished by the Chair on behalf of the House, when made by an hon. Member concerning his colleagues?

Mr. SPEAKER: This paper has only been put into my hands since I came into the Chair, and I have not had time to do more than glance at it, but it is so serious a matter that I can hardly believe the hon. Member (Mr. John) has been correctly reported in what the paper reports that he said about his colleagues in this House. I understand that the hon. Member is not available to-day, and I
would suggest, therefore, that we might further consider the matter to-morrow. The hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) is quite right in raising it to me at the earliest opportunity, but I should like, if the House will grant me time between now and to-morrow, to consider what is the right course to pursue, and also to hear whether the hon. Member (Mr. John) has anything to say.

Mr. CLYNES: May I be allowed to say I conclude that my hon. Friend the Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) has not had notice of any intention to raise this question; otherwise I am certain that he would have been here. If my hon. Friend has been correctly reported, I am quite confident, in view of the gravity of the statement attributed to him, that he will immediately see his way to make amends.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to:

Forestry Bill,

Church of Scotland (General Trustees) Order Confirmation Bill, Oban Burgh Order Confirmation Bill, Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment, Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Bill, with Amendments.

Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Bill,

To be printed. [Bill 233.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee [Progress 3rd November.]

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1921–22

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF LAROUR.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,192,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and to Special Schemes under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, contribution to the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund; payments to Associations under Section 17 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and Section 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911; Out-of-Work Donation and Expenditure in connection with the Training of Demobilised Officers and of Non-Commissioned Officers and Men, and the Training of Women; and Grants for Resettlement in Civil Life; also the Expenses of the Industrial Court.

Mr. HAYWARD: When discussion of this Vote was interrupted on Thursday night last, I was asking the Minister for Labour if he would be good enough to give us some further explanation. I notice that the Estimate is dated 19th October, which probably accounts for the fact of my not being able to make it agree with the report of the Actuary. Since that date there have been various concessions which will undoubtedly increase the final charge upon the Treasury, and it would be an advantage if the right hon. Gentleman would put it on record what the final estimate of this charge is likely to be.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The Vote before us is for £2,192,000, and that will carry us to the end of the financial year. There is, as will be seen from the footnote, a further sum of £670,000, which is for the next financial year. The two together, as my hon. Friend pointed out last Thursday,
amount to £2,862,000, against £2,538,000 in the Actuary's report. The hon. Member asks me for an explanation of the difference. There are several reasons. In the first place, the Actuary's estimate was based on a calculation of 1,750,000 persons unemployed, whereas the estimate is based on a calculation of 1,600,000 persons. Secondly, since the estimate was framed there have been certain concessions which will cost more money. There has been the invalid husband, to use the phraseology of the Debate, and there has been the housekeeper to look after the children. Together they make up, roughly, for the difference.

Mr. MYERS: I notice that part of this Estimate is to be set aside for the training of women, but there are no details set out. There is in existence a Central Committee for the training of women, and excellent work has been done in the London area and at Sheffield, Cardiff, Birmingham, Barrow and elsewhere. The first 13 weeks of that training scheme have terminated, and it would be desirable if we could be informed what is going to be done in the future and to what extent these funds are to be drawn upon for the purpose. The Central Committee takes juveniles from 14 to 16 years of age and trains them in housecraft and the like.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the matter which the hon. Member is now discussing does not come in this Vote at all, and we can only discuss matters for which money is provided by this Vote.

Mr. MYERS: Do I understand that we are discussing the Estimate of the Minister of Labour in which the training of women is specified?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that it does not come in this Vote. This money provides the Government's contribution to the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund.

Mr. MYERS: Is it not a fact that, if there be any balance after those items have been met, it will go for the purpose of training women?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. We are here finding money for the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Bill, and if at the end of our transactions we have any money in hand, it
will go to the insurance fund, and not for the training of women or men.

Sir J. D. REES: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you have put the question, as I understand it, of this supplementary sum of 22,192,000 for the Ministry of Labour. I have been lying in wait with reference to paragraph 4 of the Memorandum which relates to the Trade Facilities Bill. Am I or am I not in order in making some remarks upon the provisions of the Trade Facilities Bill, and, if not, where should they come in?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: They do not come in now.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are providing £22,192,000 for Unemployed Workers' Dependants. Is that an estimate of what the Government will actually pay out or of what must be allotted to this year, taking into account the fact that subsequent years may be better, and that the Government may recoup part of their expenses at this time of specially bad trade? I want to know whether the total additional expenditure in this financial year is £2,192,000 or whether the Government are estimating for a further expenditure which will be repaid in future years as the fund goes on?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This Estimate is for £2,192,000, which is the contribution of the State in this financial year to the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund. The £670,000 in the Estimate is for next year. This Bill lasts for six months and runs to 7th May, and the £670,000 is the charge in the next-financial year. The £115,000 referred to at the bottom of the page is not in that amount at all. This money will be distributed amongst the Votes of the various Departments responsible for the surplus.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What is the position of the reserve fund? Will any surplus that may occur fall into it? Happily, some time ago there were substantial reserves, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the position now?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The money is collected under the National Insurance Act, and these people will get the supplementary aid. The point arises now whether the State or the Unemployed Fund should receive any surplus from the Dependants Fund. That is a proper
question to answer now. There was the £22,000,000 in that fund, and it was exhausted about the end of June. Under the Act of the 1st July we had to deal with the exceptional position by reducing benefit and increasing contributions. We propose to keep the benefit at the reduced level and keep the contributions at the higher level until the fund is solvent again, which, on the basis of 1,250,000 unemployed in the year ending June, 1922, and 500,000 in the year ending June, 1923, would make the fund solvent again by June, 1923, by which time we can then review the whole situation. I have got borrowing powers up to £20,000,000 to carry on the fund. So far I have drawn upon the fund to the extent of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, but if my calculations are correct this fund will be restored to solvency by June, 1923.

Mr. CLYNES: I wish to put a question on, a point of administration. The grants to be made from this fund are grants to wives and to dependent children. I conclude that the Department has taken some step to inform the employment exchanges and the local committees of the provisions of this new Act, and I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us in what terms they have been so informed, and in what way the officers are required to give effect to the provisions of the Act? For instance, will the husband have to certify that his wife is his wife? Will documents proving the claim have to be produced, and if so, in the event of a certificate of birth in the case of a child having to be produced to secure 1s. per week, will it mean that the applicant will have to pay the cost of that certificate?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Mr. CLYNES: These are matters of importance. I am sure my right hon. Friend wishes to administer this Act with a minimum of domestic inconvenience in the case of any working-class members, and I would like some assurance in order that the husbands and the wives will he reassured, and not feel that they are being put to any undue trouble in the individual applications they will have to make for grants under this fund.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The present position of the National Employment Insurance Fund raises a matter of some consequence. If I understood the
Minister of Labour correctly, I think he said there was no balance in hand at the end of June last and that there is a deficit to-day of about £6,000,000. In other words, he is drawing on his borrowing powers to the extent of £1,500,000 every month, and that is based on the assumption of an unemployment figure of 1,500,000, and if the present situation continues, and that is evidently in the mind of the Government, because in the Estimate we are considering they allow for 1,600,000 unemployed—

Dr. MACNAMARA: During the next six months.

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, that is the period to which I am drawing attention. I wish to know what will be the position at the end of the present financial year of this unemployed fund. Is this large sum to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers this year? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is borrowing the money through the Treasury.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Under the Act.

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, under the Act. Is this deficit to fall on the national revenue this year, or is he going to side-track, so to speak, that deficit and place it on future years? This is a subject which has only arisen during the short Debate this afternoon, and the deficit is mounting up month by month. If that continues I want to know if the Minister of Labour will be required to come to the House of Commons before the present financial year is over and ask for increased borrowing powers. In the Bill which is being referred to the Minister of Labour has, I believe, borrowing powers up to £10,000,000.

Dr. MACNAMARA: £20,000,000.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has large borrowing powers which will carry him over the present financial year. I wish to point out, however, that we are living on borrowed money. We are pledging the future, and the present position, bad as it is, is steadily getting worse owing to the policy of the Government.

Mr. W. THORNE: Assuming that the £1,000,000 to meet the requirements of the dependants and the wives and
children is insufficient to meet national obligations between now and the end of the financial year, what will be the position of the wives and children?

Sir J. D. REES: I know, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that you will not allow any discussion upon anything that does not immediately arise out of this Vote. I wish to know what a young and inexperienced Member has to do when he finds an explanatory memorandum explaining the very Votes before the Committee, and when he proposes to deal briefly with one of those explanatory notes he is restrained under the rules of the House? The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) was in the same difficulty. I think that either a discussion on these points should be allowed or the Departments should be restrained from making references in explanatory notes to which hon. Members are not allowed to refer in debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The matter is very clear. Under the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Bill the Government contribution amounts to £2,192,000, and that is the sum we are discussing on this Vote. Beyond that the discussion is out of order.

Major BARNES: Some obscurity still remains on one of the points which has been raised. We have an Estimate which I understand sets forth the total liability assumed by the State in respect of the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund. That shows a total liability of £2,862,000, of which £2,192,000 falls this year and £670,000 next year. During the passage of the Bill through the House a number of concessions were made, although not to the extent which some of us would have liked, but which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought were very substantial, and they were estimated to cost about £500,000 or £600,000. All those concessions were made subsequent to the 19th October. This Estimate is dated the 19th October of this year, and that is prior to these concessions being made. What puzzles us is that this amount should include the concessions that were to be made. It also includes the concessions relating to Ireland. The Bill as introduced on the 19th did not include Ireland. This Estimate, which is dated the 19th of October, does include Ireland. It is difficult to understand how an Estimate produced before the concessions were made can make provision for them?

Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). His reference is to the Estimate before us, and I may say that the explanatory page was issued before the Trade Facilities Bill was complete. The hon. Baronet's proper course was to have made his comment during the proceedings at some stage of the Bill. As regards the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne), he asks what will happen when this six months' Fund is exhausted. I take power in the Bill to continue after the period for which the grant is made the contribution for such weeks as are necessary. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend who put the question as to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I spoke offhand when I stated that we had already drawn on this Fund £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. The amount should have been £4,250,000, and I am very glad of this opportunity of making the correction. What I mean is that we have run into debt so far, in respect of the £20,000,000 I am entitled to borrow under the Act, to the extent of £4,250,000. I have no doubt I shall be able to get through to the end of the financial year with the powers I have. I shall keep the benefit down from 15s. to 12s., and shall keep the contributions going until the Fund is solvent, and until I have repaid to the Treasury such sums as I have borrowed from it. I hope the Fund will be solvent by June, 1923.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) has asked what steps we shall take to administer this new fund as expeditiously and as smoothly as possible. I am greatly indebted to the local employment committees and to the officers of the Employment Exchanges for their assistance in this matter. The first payments, for a half-week, were made on Saturday last, and my reports, from all parts of the country, show that those payments were made without any hitch, thanks to the untiring efforts and the pains taken by the local employment committees to examine into the eligibility of claimants. We were able, in fact, to make payments last Saturday to the extent of 90 per cent. of the claims that had been put in, and I repeat I am greatly indebted to the local employment committees and the Employment Exchange officers for the untiring work which made this possible. I watched the working at
one particular Exchange, and was very delighted with the smooth and expeditious way in which things went as a result of the trouble which had been taken beforehand. As to the arrangements for paying claims for dependants, and especially for children, the local employment committees and the Exchange officials have already had full and complete information in anticipation of the passing of the Act, and have had sent to them forms which the applicants will be required to fill up. These forms are as simple as possible, and, generally speaking, we shall accept the statement of the applicant, provided it is signed by a Justice of the Peace, a trade union official, a minister of religion, or some other reputable person. Of course, if a claim is disputed or in doubt, birth certificate will be required, for which we shall charge 6d., but I imagine that in the great bulk of cases the forms having been filled up and countersigned in the way I have suggested, that will be sufficient. I know that this Fund will cast a very heavy burden, in the matter of examination and investigation on local committees and Exchange officers, but they have done their work so admirably in the past that I am sure my right hon. Friend may rest quite satisfied that they will carry them out again as loyally and as patiently as they did the work under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I want to raise two points. The first is with regard to the Loan Fund. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he had drawn on that fund to the extent of £4,250,000 at present, and I think he also gave an estimate that the monthly drawing on it is £1,500,000.

Dr. MACNAMARA: That depends on the number of persons unemployed.

Mr. MARRIOTT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us any estimate of the drawings on the fund for the months which are immediately ahead of us? I think he told us he fully expected that the £20,000,000 would carry him through the present financial year. If that is his expectation it means that at the present time he is drawing on the fund to the extent of £3,000,000 per month. It is a simple matter of figures, £4,250,000 have already been expended out of the Loan Fund of £20,000,000. There are five months between now and
the close of the financial year. My right hon. Friend anticipates that the £20,000,000 will see us through that time, but is he not understating his expectation? Will it not carry us a good deal beyond that?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any estimate of what, roughly speaking, he is taking from the fund at the present time per month? If he can it may reassure the minds of many of us. My other point is this. In the first part of his Memorandum my right hon. Friend states that the sum which is to be immediately provided by the State for unemployment is less than £12,000,000. Should not the word be "ultimately" instead of "immediately"? I understand that the £12,000,000 will not be immediately provided, but some of it will be provided in the financial year 1922–23. What is immediately provided is a sum on the one hand of £2,192,000, on the other hand of 2330,000, and, under a third head, of Unemployment Relief of £5,500,000, or a total immediately provided of £8,022,000. The rest of the items which appear in the Memorandum are items which will not come into payment until after the close of the financial year, and, therefore, do not come within the provision immediately to be made. I have been a little mystified by the use of this word "immediately."

Sir G. COLLINS: We now learn that the deficit at the present time is not £6,000,000, but £4,250,000, and we are paying out of the fund about £1,000,000 per month. I understand the deficit came into being towards the end of June. Since then about four months have elapsed, and it is mounting up at the rate of £1,000,000 per month. At the end of the financial year, if the present rate of unemployment is maintained, the deficit on the Natonal Insurance Unemployment Fund will be very considerable, as I have already pointed out. I am anxious to support the point raised by the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) in connection with the total sum which the Committee is asked to vote this afternoon. My hon. Friend very rightly pointed out that this Estimate was printed on the 19th of October. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the concessions which he made during the
passage of the Bill subsequently to that date. He extended the Bill to Ireland at a cost of £70,000. He deleted the restrictions as to the 1s. per week up to four children, and that concession cost £200,000. Here are two specific concessions which the Minister granted during the passing of the Bill, and which this Estimate makes no provision for. I think the Estimate, on closer examination, may show what has really happened. Are not the Government, having printed the Estimate, and then decided to ask for further sums of money, being driven to place the burden on future years? I shall be glad to have some information from the Minister on that point. It is estimated that the Exchequer contribution to be found next year will amount to £670,000. What is the position this afternoon? The Minister of Labour, during the course of the present financial year, is being forced to borrow £7,000,000 in order to pay benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and in addition the Committee is being asked to vote certain sums of money this afternoon involving further liabilities on the Exchequer next year.

Dr. MACNAMARA: This Estimate has nothing to do with the Unemployment Insurance Act, except that the people who pay are under the Insurance Act and are entitled to benefits. This, however, is supplementary to the benefits of the Insurance Act. I am not now dealing with the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund, but with the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I am estimating that, during the year ending with June, 1922, there will be 1,250,000 persons unemployed, and thereafter 500,000 persons for the year June, 1922—June, 1923. By that time, on that basis—that is to say, by keeping contributions at their present level and benefits at the reduced level—the fund will be solvent. I have so far borrowed £4,250,000. I have no doubt that we shall be able to carry on, and that if I have to borrow £20,000,000, I shall be able to repay the money by reason of the condition of the fund which will result by keeping up the contribution and keeping the benefit down by June, 1923. That is the position of that fund. This is a totally different thing. This is an ad hoc fund collected from the workpeople, the employers and the State who are concerned under the Insurance Act, and it is to be paid in
grants for the purpose of supplementary assistance to persons who are out of employment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) has great difficulty in understanding precisely what is the difference between the Estimate, which is £2,192,000 for this financial year and £670,000 for the next financial year, and the Actuary's report, which is something like £324,000 less.

Major BARNES: That was not my point. My point was as to how an Estimate of £2,192,000, made before the Bill was introduced and before any concessions were made, still remains at £2,192,000 after the concessions have been made.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have tried to explain on the face of the Estimate. At the bottom of page 5 there is a reference to the case of Ireland—

Major BARNES: That is for next year.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The difference between the Actuary's report and the Estimate is accounted for in the following way. The Actuary estimates that there will be 1,750,000 persons unemployed, while this Estimate is for 1,600,000 persons, including Ireland. Inasmuch as 1,600,000 are allowed for, more will be paid in contributions than if the Estimate were for 1,750,000, and, therefore, the State contribution has to be more. That is one of the reasons for the difference of £324,000 between the Estimate and the Actuary's report. The difference is also accounted for partly by the provision which, as shown on the Estimate, we have made for Ireland, and for the two other concessions in respect of the invalid husband and the house-keeper. My hon. and gallant Friend made a complaint that we are casting some sort of obligation on the future with regard to the sum of £670,000. But what are we to do? Here is a Bill that is going to run from the 7th November to the 7th May. Unhappily, the calendar provides that the 31st March comes in between, and the £2,192,000 is for the period 7th November—31st March, and the £670,000 is for the period 31st March—7th May. Is there anything wrong in carrying over to the next financial year the period between 31st March and 7th May in a Bill which I have told the House all the time is going
to be for six months? I am bound to say with great respect that that is a sort of criticism which I do not think is very helpful.

Major HAYWARD: There is one point of principle and of policy which has arisen out of this discussion, and which, although small, is important. We are told that, if there is any surplus in the fund at the end of the period, it is to be paid over to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, as provided in the Bill. I think I am entitled to discuss that as a matter of policy, because this is a new service. The right hon. Gentleman himself has told us that this has nothing to do with the Unemployment Insurance. Fund, but is an ad hoc fund. I would ask, in that case, why any surplus should be paid over to that fund? This fund is contributed to by three parties—the State, the employer, and the employé; and if there is a balance, then certainly, so far as the employers and employés are concerned, it ought to be paid back to them. It is utterly unfair, unwarranted, and unjustifiable that these contributions should have to be made by employers and employés at all, because this is called an insurance scheme. Although the Bill provides that any surplus shall be paid over to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the Bill is not yet an Act, and therefore, I take it, that this being a new service, I am entitled to discuss the question of policy underlying the grant. I only want, to deal with one point, and that very shortly. It is entirely unfair and unjust that the employers and the employés should be asked to contribute to this under the name of an insurance scheme, because it is not an insurance scheme. It abrogates every principle of any insurance scheme that anybody, certainly in this Committee, has ever heard of, and for two reasons. First of all, you are bringing into a new insurance scheme an existing liability for payments in respect of 1,750,000 unemployed persons who are already unemployed. That is an immediate charge, according to the actuary's report, of £240,000 per week. You cannot bring these existing casualties into a new insurance scheme and call it insurance. You did not do that when you started the Unemployment Insurance Act. What you did then was to exact contributions from persons already employed, and nobody could get the benefit until they had been employed
for 12 weeks, or, at any rate, until they had paid 12 contributions. The right hon. Gentleman justifies it by saying that as a matter of fact these people have their risk covered for the succeeding six months. That is true in part, but if you want to act fairly by them you should get your actuary to tell you what it is going to cost to insure those persons for the six months, and charge them accordingly. You ought not to bring in all the existing casualties. Then, again, those people, after the six months are past, will have to contribute when they will not be covered at all, so you are simply exacting premiums or contributions from them while they are not covered. But that is not all.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly true that the Bill has not actually passed both Houses of Parliament, but the principle of the Bill has passed this House, and I could not allow a general discussion on the Bill, or we should be discussing it all over again.

Sir D. MACLEAN: On that point of Order. While I am not in favour of obviously unnecessary repetition of arguments which have been previously used, I would put it to you, Sir Edwin, for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of Members in Committee, that, where a new service is proposed, as is now the case, so far as I am able to understand, Members are open to raise the whole question in Committee even though it may have been debated in other stages. I admit that the whole question of the principle of differentiating between what is insurance and what is not would be outside the scope of the discussion, but I submit that matters which are raised in connection with such a grant of money as this are open to discussion by the Committee, even though the arguments have been used on other stages of the Bill, to which, of course, this is closely related.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is quite true when the sum of money is for a new service, but this, I think, does not quite come within that category. It is for the purpose of providing the State's contribution to a fund which is already established. We cannot discuss here whether it was right to establish that fund, or the merits of that fund. All that we can discuss is how it is proposed
to deal with this sum of £2,192,000. We cannot discuss the merits of the original Unemployment Insurance Act or of the present temporary Measure, but it would be in order to discuss the Minister's administration procedure in dealing with this sum of £2,192,000.

Major HAYWARD: I do not propose, and was not proposing, to enter into a general discussion such as took place on the Second Reading and during the Committee stage of the Bill. I was directing my observations to one point of a purely financial character, and it was only from that point of view that I was considering the Bill. My point was that it was not fair to the contributors who are to pay this money that, if there is any balance over and above their contributions, it should be paid into another fund altogether. The only other matter that I desire to point out is that in the case of boys, girls, unmarried men, unmarried women, married men without dependants, and married women without dependants, you are exacting a contribution for which they derive no benefit whatever. They are covered from no risk and insured in no sense whatever, and that, I say, is a most unjust procedure.

Mr. W. THORNE: I understand that we are entitled to discuss what the Minister is going to do with the balance in the event of there being a balance. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Hayward) suggested that, if there is a balance, that balance should be returned to the contributors—that is to say, the workmen, the employers and the State. I recognise that it would be easy to hand back part of the balance to the employers and part to the State, but, in the name of common sense, how are you going to find all the workmen who have been contributing? In consequence of the casual nature of their employment, in many cases, it would be impossible for anyone to find out where they might be at the time when the balance was in existence, and, therefore, from that point of view, I recognise that it would be impracticable to divide the surplus again between the three contributing bodies, and I think that all of my colleagues on this side of the Committee have come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with the surplus, if there be any, would be to hand it over to the original Unemploy-
ment Insurance Fund. In consequence, however, of the one or two small concessions which the Minister has made, I understand it is anticipated that there will be a deficit, so that I do not think we need worry our heads at all about a balance, because probably there will not be any.

5.0 P.M.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The principle which was settled by the Second Reading of the Bill is not before the Committee. What the hon. Member objects to is paying back the balance to the three parties to the Insurance Fund. Clause 2, Sub-section (7) says:
Any balance remaining in the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Fund, after discharging its liabilities under this Act, shall be apportioned equitably, in accordance with directions to be given by the Minister of Labour, between the Unemployment Fund and the several funds out of which benefits under any special schemes are payable.
I talk to the people who are under the Insurance Act—the workpeople, the employers, and the State. I say, "I will give you this ad hoc fund. The men and women who are receiving benefit shall as the result of this fund get this little supplementary allowance in respect of their wives and children." If there is a balance what more equitable thing than to return it to those who built the fund up? There must be a balance, though it can only be a very narrow one. You cannot wind this thing up precisely. I shall have to take a week's contribution to wind it up, and there may be some margin left over. In that case I shall propose to distribute it equitably amongst the three parties contributory to the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

Question put, and agreed to.

RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Relief of Unemployment.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I notice that although this Vote applies both to Scotland and England, it has to be administered by the Ministry of Health. There are Government Departments, the Ministry of Labour, for instance, which
function in Scotland, and the sums which are applicable to Scotland under the last Vote will, of course, be dealt with by the Scottish machinery which is set up in Edinburgh and other places where the Ministry of Labour functions. It seems rather strange, unless there is some explanation given, why a purely English Department, like the Ministry of Health, should propose to function in Scotland for the administration of what is to be the Scottish share of the £5,500,000. I hope I shall hear that some arrangements are in contemplation or have been made whereby, although not in name, in effect, whatever portion of this sum is allocated to Scotland will be administered as far as possible through Scottish machinery. The result of that naturally will be that it will be more efficiently and more economically done than if it were handled from London. I hope the right hon. Baronet will be able to give a satisfactory assurance with regard to that.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will my right hon. Friend also explain why the Ministry of Health should be selected for the administration of unemployment funds when we have a Ministry of Labour?

Sir D. MACLEAN: One other point. Is the amount to go to Scotland to be allocated on the eleven-eightieths basis, or is it to be administered in accordance with the needs of Scotland insofar as the money will go?

Mr. MYERS: We desire once more to register our protest from this side of the Committee against the extremely limited range of this Estimate. The unemployed problem as it presents itself to us to-day is altogether different from what it has been in days gone by, and this Estimate assumes, like all provision in days gone by has done, that the unemployed man is a casual worker of the unskilled variety, and the works mentioned in the Estimate—land, main drainage, forestry, roads and light railways—assume that any unemployed man will be of the pick and shovel variety. That might have obtained in the past, but it most certainly does not prevail at present. Even if that were so, the sum set forth in this Estimate is altogether inadequate to meet the needs of the situation, and we believe our strong protest is necessary. When we consider the magnitude of the unemployed problem it is quite an insignifi-
cant item to deal with it. Further, we think it is hedged round too much with conditions, and that in these days when we have so many people bordering upon starvation and needing immediate assistance, immediate relief or immediate employment, as the case may be, the best work we can do is the work which can be done quickly, and contention between local authorities and the Departments concerned is one of the things that ought to be avoided. Further, we deprecate the proposal which asks local authorities to apply for loans. Those districts where the application of this Estimate is necessary are already burdened financially, and with rates at the tremendously high level of 20s. and 30s. in the £, what prospect is there of these authorities being able to secure loans to carry out this work even when they have received the sanction of the Department? Feeling how limited the Estimate is in its scope, having regard to the nature of the work it provides for, the fact that in bulk it is inadequate and that it proposes to impose further financial hardships upon local authorities—these are the lines of our criticism of the Estimate, and while we take it from the point of view of taking what we can get, we register our protest against the general inadequacy of the proposal.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): It may be useful if I say a word explaining the Estimate, and deal with the questions which have been put to me. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. M. Scott), some Department had to take charge. The Estimate covers many other Departments, but as a large amount, probably the largest amount, of the money will be required as assistance for Poor Law guardians and local authorities, my Department has been placed in charge and not the Ministry of Labour. As regards what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), far be it from me or any British Minister to wish to administer anything in Scotland. I am glad to be able to assure him, as far as loans to parish councils are concerned, that that will go to the Scottish Board of Health. The money will be distributed according to needs, and not on a basis of mathematical calculation. As regards the Board of Agriculture, land improvement
and drainage, that will be administered as far as Scotland is concerned by the Scottish Board Of Agriculture. This is an omnibus Vote, and it includes a very large number of measures which have been considered by the Cabinet Unemployment Committee, and have been sanctioned by the Cabinet, to deal with unemployment. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) considers the amount entirely inadequate, but this is only a part of a large number of other schemes to deal with the whole problem. Of course, the problem is a vast one—no one has any doubt about that—but the means of the country unfortunately are not unlimited. If we had not spent quite so much money in other directions in the last year—there is the large amount we had to spend during the coal stoppage on armed forces, amounting to some £7,000,000—and if it had not been for the fall in revenue due to that stoppage, we should have had a little more money now. The sums, however, are very considerable. We propose to find considerable sums for land improvement, drainage, forestry, road making, and light railways, and the amount of money in the Estimate does not represent the total number of people we shall be able to employ, because the number of these amounts are recoverable from other authorities or individuals, which will swell the total amount of employment which will be given. It is difficult to make an estimate of what the figure will be, but all these schemes, when they get going, will employ a very substantial amount of labour. Further, local authorities are coming forward freely with schemes of their own. I quite agree that they want to get to work as quickly as possible, but I do not think the hon. Member can claim that any schemes of local authorities which have been put before my Ministry or Lord St. Davids Committee have been held up in London, and that work has not proceeded with the utmost expedition. According to the last figures, no fewer than 514 schemes of 181 local authorities have been sanctioned at an estimated cost of £5,000,000.

Mr. SIMM: What does local authority mean? Does it mean only a parish council?

Sir A. MOND: County councils, borough councils, urban district councils,
rural district councils, parish councils—all local authorities. The progress which has been made is very satisfactory. I am sure the Government is very gratified at the patriotic way the local authorities are coming forward, producing schemes and finding the money to carry them out. There may be a few isolated local authorities in various places who are not capable of carrying out any work, but most municipalities are not in that condition, and they are providing in various ways work for the unemployed. They are the best people to deal with the matter. They know the locality, they know the people whom they want to employ, and they have schemes in hand which they desire to carry out, and which will have to be carried out at some future date if not now. They have made an excellent response under the Circular sent from my Department, many people are being employed, and I have no doubt that the work will proceed on a more rapid scale during the winter and that we shall get more and more people to work.
We are very hopeful of providing employment in regard to road making, schemes for which are now being considered, emanating from the East End of London. Those schemes will enable us to employ a considerable number of men in that part of London which is so very heavily hit, and to employ them for a considerable period on a very useful piece of work. Hon. Members like the hon. Member for West Ham and other London Members will be glad to know that we hope to be able to employ 20,000 men, if not more, very shortly on these arterial road schemes, and they will be unemployed men from the London district. As soon as this Vote is sanctioned, the Departments can get their schemes ready and put into operation, and we shall have taken another great step towards helping the unemployed. I am not going to say that our schemes will deal with the whole of the problem, or with anything but a part of it; but I do ask that the Vote shall be passed as soon as possible so that we can get on with the work as quickly as we can, and give these poor men who are out of work the chance of a job at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee will have heard with great satisfaction of the large number of schemes which are being submitted by
local authorities, and my right hon. Friend's opinion as to the speed with which these schemes will be put into force. I want to draw attention to a matter which is causing a good deal of difficulty among local authorities in connection with the schemes of relief for the unemployed. A Circular, 251, was issued on the 12th October, which gave information to local authorities as to the conditions under which the Government assistance would be given to these schemes, and this Circular lays it down that the rate of wages to be paid on these relief works is to be only 75 per cent. of the local authorities' rate for unskilled labour, for a probationary period of six months. I am rather surprised that the spokesmen of the Labour party, in putting forward their criticisms to-day, have made no mention of this point. I should have thought from the importance that has been given to it in the provinces it would have come first in any of their criticisms. It happens that, not for the first time, a member of another party has to call attention to a matter which concerns labour so intimately.
The condition laid down in the Circular is a new one. It was not the condition that obtained last year when grants were given by the unemployment relief committees. The local authorities paid the full rate for unskilled labour. As they employ not only unskilled labour, but also labour which is not skilled in this particular class of work, but skilled in various trades, they are paying such men very much lower rates than they could obtain in their own trade if they could find work in it. Does my right hon. Friend realise the enormous importance that it attached by labour to the standardisation of wages rates by local authorities? This is a matter which has been disputed for a great many years, and the position has been reached in which not only is it universally agreed by local authorities that they will not undercut the rates of pay, but it is a condition which has been insisted upon by the Government. Whilst local authorities who employ direct labour on these schemes are now instructed only to pay 75 per cent. of the local rate, yet when they give work to contractors, those contractors must pay the full rate. What is the difference between work given to a contractor, and work done directly by the local authorities? I suppose my right
hon. Friend will say that the contractor can get labour where he likes, and labour which is suited for the particular class of work, whereas the local authority when it gets unemployed labour for work of this kind does not get value for the money. That is absolutely true. It is well known that work on these relief schemes never does give value for money. The people employed ex hypothesi cannot give value for money, because many of them are not accustomed to the work, and they are not well fed, and, having been out of work, the chances are that their physical condition is not good.
Is 25 per cent. the measure of the difference, and is it worth while for the sake of saving, or trying to save, this 25 per cent. on the rates, to put every local authority in the country in a position where it is going to be abused by Labour people, where it is going to be held up to obloquy, and where a weapon is given to the extremists among the Labour people to say that advantage is being taken of the misery and poverty of the workman to exploit him and bring his rate down? The man in the street cannot make, and will not make, a fine distinction on that account. He will be told that the local authority is cutting down his rate, and trying to bring down his standard of living in order to save money at a time of economy, and he will never understand what are the arguments on the other side. It is not worth while to incur this obloquy, and to put local authorities in a position which they intensely dislike, for the sake of a small gain. The Association of Municipal Corporations have passed a resolution protesting against this condition. In my own City of Birmingham the council have passed a resolution of protest, and I have had a letter from the Lord Mayor, which says that it will make it very difficult for them to put in hand great works if this condition is insisted upon.
I conceive it possible that my right hon. Friend has in mind the case of men who are working part time, and he thinks that if the full rate is given to those employed on relief work, that that will tempt men to remain on relief work rather than work only part time at their own trade. I very much doubt whether there is much force in that contention, but if there is any danger on that account, could not my right hon. Friend, instead of
cutting the rate, make it a condition that a man shall not be employed a whole week at the full rate? It would give relief to a larger number of men by employing a certain number of men for a number of days in a week rather than putting the men on for a full week and cutting down the rate of pay. If the condition laid down in the circular is proceeded with, I am afraid that there will be serious misunderstanding of the motives of the local authorities, and the ill-will which will be created locally between labour and their employers, the local authorities, will do such harm as will entirely outweigh the advantages which my right hon. Friend hopes to obtain. Therefore, I ask if he will be good enough to give us some explanation of the reasons which have led him to lay down a condition of this kind, which is apparently so much at variance with the whole practice of Governments in the past. If the reasons are those which I suppose, I would ask him if they could not be met more wisely by restrictions upon the number of hours per week that any individual could be employed, rather than in cutting down the rate of wages.

Mr. RHYS J. DAVIES: I should like to emphasise the point that has been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham. The Ministry of Health, unless this Circular is amended, will come up against great difficulties in connection with the administration of the fund. I would remind the hon. Member who has just spoken that had he been here during the Debate earlier last week, he would have heard exactly the same points put forward by Members from the Labour Benches. It is only fair to the Minister of Health to give concrete cases as to how this Circular works. I am a member of one of the largest local authorities in this country, and I know full well that the opinions expressed there are very strongly against the provisions of the Circular. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a concrete case. At Cardiff 1,800 men were employed on relief work prior to the issue of this Circular. They were employed three days a week at a rate of wages for unskilled labour of 1s. 7d. per hour. After the issue of the Circular each man was employed for a full week at the 75 per cent. rate of wages, thereby reducing the number of men by one half. Instead of there being 1,800 men employed for half a week, half the men were employed for a full week.
Here is a case from Lancashire, where the local authority, a board of guardians, had a skilled labourer in their employ, who was in receipt of the full rate of wages for unskilled labour, and they employ another man, to whom, in accordance with the provision of the Circular, they are bound to pay the 75 per cent. rate of wages, and you have the ridiculous result that the local authority is paying one man full rates, and the other man doing exactly the same work 75 per cent. of the rates of the first man. It is possible for a small local authority, unlike a large local authority, to have a number of men employed on exactly the same work and paid the full rate in one case and 75 per cent. in the other. That is an absurd position and cannot go on. But our strongest criticism is this, that the 75 per cent. rate of wages only applies to direct labour. I think that I can speak for the majority of the Manchester City Council when I say that we protest that this provision is to be made only in regard to direct labour schemes. It is unfair.
But there is something else which is a very serious matter. The trade union movement of this country has fought for half a century for a Fair Wages Clause in the standing orders of every town council in the land. The statement made in Circular 251 cuts right across the Fair Contracts Clause. I do not think that the Minister of Health ever intended this to happen, but I think that he ought to be informed that organised labour is getting apprehensive and suspicious that the Ministry of Health Circular is trying to depress the standard of life. That is the suspicion which exists at the moment. I appeal as strongly as I can to the Minister of Health to amend this Circular. This is not only the appeal of organised labour, but of the local authorities. I have received many communications from local authorities in Lancashire stating that they themselves would desire to do the right thing by this treaty, because they say that it does not follow that when you engage men on relief work they are of a lower standard than the men already employed by the local authority. Let us put them all on the same basis. I concur with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. N. Chamberlain) that the difference is not worth proposing by the right hon. Gentleman, and I trust that the Circular will be withdrawn forthwith.

Mr. J. WALLACE: I wish to direct attention to this question as it affects
Scotland. On page 6 of the White Paper it is stated:
Payments to statutory bodies wilt be audited in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statutes, and payments to local authorities by the Ministry of Health auditor.
Does this refer to the Scottish Ministry of Health? I take it that that will be done by our own officials there and our own auditors. It is important that Scottish expenditure should have Scottish supervision, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will make that point clear when he replies. There is provided in this Vote a sum of £5,500,000. I do not know what the allocation is to be for Scotland, but, having regard to the enormous amount of unemployment in Scotland at present, I regard the sum set aside to deal with it as inadequate. Its inadequacy, however, is a matter which has already been decided upon, and therefore I would direct attention to one or two points in reference to the practical application of the policy of dealing with unemployment. It is a very serious burden upon the local authorities, which are the parish councils, that they have to deal with the sums to be loaned under this Estimate. I have received protests from very many parish councils in Scotland as to this burden which is to be placed upon them. I do not suggest that it is possible at present to revise our rating system, but the incidence of our rating burdens is most unequal.
In my own county of Fife, unemployment is very great indeed, and the sum required for relief ought to be given by the Exchequer by a system of grants and not of loans. I see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer present, and I may give him one example of what I mean. Take a small parish, called Ballingry, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), a parish of very low rateable value, where the poor rate at present is something like 2s. in the £. This will probably mean an addition of 3s. or 4s. in the £ to that poor rate. It should be realised by the Government that places of that kind—and there are many of them in Scotland—are carrying not a local but a national burden, and, therefore, that the incidence is most unfair. The Treasury has seen fit only to grant relief by a system of loans. I realise the great
difficulties which my right hon. Friend has at present, but I would put this point, that the interest on these loans should be such as to make the burden as light as possible, and that the time for the repayment of these loans ought to be extended as far as possible. I think that he realises, as we all do, that this burden must be shared as much as possible nationally, and if he could agree favourably to consider the point again, the local authorities in Scotland would be exceedingly grateful. We ought to realise how very strong all over Scotland at present is the feeling that this burden should be a national one and should not be borne altogether by the local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I wish to concur with what has been stated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Wallace) and to ask the Minister of Health for a little further answer than that which has already been given to the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). The Minister of Health stated that Scotland's share would be given through the Scottish Board of Health and according to the needs, and not according to the scale. That sounds very well, but we want to know who is to decide what are the comparative needs of Scotland and of England. I presume that this Vote of £5,500,000 will be handed over to the English Ministry of Health. Is the English Ministry of Health to be the body to decide what grants are to be handed over to Scotland, or is a Committee to be set up, or what mode of procedure is to be adopted? This is an important matter.
There is in Scotland a Scottish Board of Health. Is it to be administered through the Scottish Board of Health? Why not hand over eleven-eightieths of the money to the Scottish Board of Health, even though that may not be the proportion according to Scottish needs, because Scotland is in a very much worse position in regard to relief than England is? In England, with a population of some 40,000,000, there are only 600 local authorities giving relief, through boards of guardians, etc. In Scotland, with a population of 4,500,000 we have 960 parish councils, and therefore the areas are very much smaller, and it presses very hardly on poor parish councils in large
industrial areas. I hope that the Minister of Health will explain what is intended. I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have considered giving some grant to relieve these parish councils, but if that cannot be done, I trust that these loans will be given very generously and that in extreme cases, not only the interest will be remitted, but also a portion of these instalments over the first few years. I am sorry that the Minister of Health has left the House, because I do not think that he has answered fully the questions which have been put to him.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I desire to explain the general view of the party on this side of the House is that our action in voting against the whole Vote would be subject to considerable misunderstanding, because Members in all parts of the House feel that something should be done for the unemployed, but we feel that we cannot let a Vote of this kind go without a very clear and definite challenge to the Government as to their action which, in our judgment, is tantamount, not only to a violation of the Fair Wage Clause, but a direct invitation to the local authorities to reduce wages. It is a very curious thing that at the present time, not only are we strengthened in our action by the protest of labour bodies, trade unions, and the rest, but Members in all parts of the House will have received protest against the action of the Minister from local authorities who by no means represent Labour majorities. Take a county council like my own at Derby, where the majority are by no means a Labour majority. They feel that not only is the action of the Ministry unfair, but that the Government, by the issue of that Circular, has compromised the local authorities, and placed them in the position that if they want to do the right thing by their own people with all the local knowledge at their disposal they must allow themselves to be surcharged by the Government, or, on the other hand, if they carry out the Government instructions in dealing with this question they will have to deal with local circumstances in a way which they do not consider best.
I will give an illustration by the borough surveyor himself. I suppose the Government will admit that the borough surveyor would be the best judge as to the value of the labour under him. I understand the Government to say that the local authority must judge on its merits, but in this case the Minister will not allow the local authority any power of jurisdiction whatever. In this particular case the borough surveyor for the past six months has been conducting local relief work with some hundreds of men. A new scheme is sanctioned and the Government say, "We will only sanction the grant for this new scheme on condition that you reduce the wages of your men." The contractor is allowed to do as he likes, but the borough surveyor comes along and says to the town council, "In my judgment not only is the work performed satisfactorily, but I go beyond that and say that there is very good value for the money paid." The Government say that the surveyor must not be the judge, and that someone in London is a much better judge of what these Derby working men can do. The result is that the town council are in this further difficulty, that they have regular men doing similar work at one rate of pay and the same class of men doing the same class of work equally satisfactorily under the same surveyor and paid by the same body, but receiving a different rate of pay. That is an absurd and ridiculous position. We say that the local authorities ought to determine the question. It ought not to be left to the Minister of Health to increase the chaos that exists now or to strike a blow at direct labour when many municipal authorities are pointing out the value they have had from direct labour as against the rings and combines. For all these reasons, and in support of the very excellent statement of the case made by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys J. Davies), I move the reduction of the Vote.

Major W. MURRAY: I desire to emphasise one point which affects the smaller Scottish boroughs in a bad way. So far as Scotland is concerned, land reclamation and drainage have been found to supply a very good and useful method of providing work for the unemployed. I could mention one borough council by which a great deal of land has been reclaimed and considerable work given to the unemployed for seven or eight months
past, but the difficulty of that borough council and, I should imagine, of other Scottish borough councils is that they cannot take more land in order to reclaim it. So far as I understand the matter, there is no mode by which these smaller councils can obtain land for reclamation unless by some joint scheme with a neighbouring county council, which would require to purchase the land and assist the borough council in that way. I need not say that all joint schemes of that kind would mean great delay and the unemployed in those small boroughs would most certainly suffer. In answer to a question to-day, the Lord Advocate kindly mentioned another mode, namely, that the boroughs might obtain what they wanted by going to the Land Development Commissioners. That, again, is a very lengthy process, and one that would require consultation with a good many authorities besides the Development Commissioners. Moreover, it would have the effect of delaying the application of these grants to any of the unemployed in the smaller boroughs. In England they have not exactly the same difficulty, but in Scotland it is an important matter calling for consideration. If two or three months hence it is found that the borough councils in Scotland are not able to make use of these grants for the reclamation of land for the purpose of employing the unemployed, it would be a very unfortunate ending to a Session which was called in order to consider all the points pertaining to the employment of the unemployed.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: We are discussing the largest and the most important of these Supplementary Estimates. Where is the Minister of Health? Where is the Minister of Labour? Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Who is responsible? So far as I can see, practically the only Ministers on the Front Bench are Scottish representatives. Why have they come here in such force? I can assure them they are too late. They have missed the train. The English Minister of Health has already scooped the whole of this grant. It is no use their coming here at this time. They ought to have dealt with this matter beforehand, and their place now is not on the Front Bench. Their place is at Downing Street interviewing the Primo Minister to see why this state of affairs prevails. I wish to make some comments
on the fact that the administration of this fund is placed entirely upon an English Minister, not a British Minister, not a Minister for a Department which covers the whole of the United Kingdom, but a Minister whose functions are confined to England and Wales. There are two functions imposed upon the Minister by the Minute attached to this Estimate. In the first place, he will have to administer that portion of the fund which comes within his own Department—local government, the local authorities and boards of guardians. In regard to that part, I am sure that he will make a most efficient Minister. He will administer the fund on sound business principles and on sound economic lines. But there is another function imposed upon him and quite a different one. That function is not administration; it is the allocation and distribution of this fund between his own Department and other Departments, and not only that, but between the different forms of relief work in different proportions.
What are his qualifications for doing this allocation work? In the first place, his Ministry does not concern the whole of the United Kingdom. It concerns only England. He is not officially informed on these matters. Officially what does he know about unemployment? It is not within his own Department. He will have to go to other Departments for information and for advice. He will have to go to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour alone of all the Ministers has the proper and adequate information to enable him to say how this fund should be allocated as between the different Departments and the different forms of relief work which may be suggested. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be the judge in his own cause. He will have the allocation of the whole fund and will decide between his own Department and other Departments, and between the forms of relief work administered by his own Department and those administered outside. Therefore I say that, as regards information, as regards technical knowledge of the problem, and as regards fairness, he is not in any way qualified to allocate this money. Why, for instance, should my hon. Friend the Secretary of
the Board of Health of Scotland have to go cap in hand to the English Minister of Health?

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Why not? Wales has to do it.

Mr. SCOTT: Why should not the Minister of Health go cap in hand to the Secretary of the Board of Health of Scotland? I see that the Minister of Health has now returned to the Committee. It seems to me that at present the Scottish Ministers in the House are the only ones who take an interest in this subject, as they have been the only ones present on the Front Bench. Why should not the administration and allocation of this fund have been entrusted to them? It is a grant from the Treasury. In one respect the Treasury might have been the proper authority to allocate the money. There is only one Minister who is qualified, from a Departmental point of view, to allocate this fund, and that is the Minister of Labour. I wish to press this matter. My right hon. Friend dealt with it rather perfunctorily. Why is it that in a matter dealing with unemployment pure and simple, and the relief of unemployment, the Minister of Labour has not been trusted with the allocation of the fund? Why has it been necessary to call in a super-business man? Why should my right hon. Friend who, after all, is only Minister for a small English Department, overstride all the other Imperial Departments like a Colossus of Rhodes? Even at this late hour, the matter should be reconsidered, and we should have the Minister of Labour allocating this fund and rationing the Minister of Health in his own Department.

Sir A. MOND: What does the hon. Member say the Minister of Labour ought to administer?

Mr. SCOTT: If my right hon. Friend will look at the Estimate he will find a sum of £5,500,000 allocated for the relief of unemployment. My right hon. Friend comes rather late in the day. I was dealing with the subject, and giving this information while he was absent.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member is quite wrong. It will be allocated by the Cabinet Committee. Neither the Minister of Labour nor the Minister of Health will allocate it.

Mr. SCOTT: This Vote will be accounted for by the Minister of Health.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Gentleman will find that the heads of different Departments will also account.

6.0 P. M.

Mr. SCOTT: This Vote will be accounted for by the Minister of Health. Why by him, and not by the Minister of Labour? I have dealt with that point, and I want to make a few remarks upon another very important branch of relief work. It is that portion which is referred to in the Minute as forestry. Afforestation is one of the most useful forms which relief expenditure on unemployment can take. It is useful in two ways. In the first place, it is a form of enterprise in which, under the supervision of a few skilled men, a very large proportion of labour can be employed, of the very kind which is unemployed at the present time. Men can be employed on clearing, draining, planting, and fencing, and the expenditure on afforestation is largely expenditure on labour. In the second place, its results do not disappear like water going into the ground. It leaves the State with a real valuable asset, for the expenditure which has taken place. In after years the trees which have been planted will be earning for themselves. They grow while we sleep. I believe that on this land which is most suitable for afforestation there is a larger profit possible to the State at the present time by means of afforestation, there is a larger possibility of wealth for the State, than by any other method of dealing with waste land. Those are strong reasons for encouraging expnditure on afforestation not merely in times of unemployment but in general. How much is it proposed to spend on afforestation at the present time? The sum suggested is £250,000. I wish to get some information on this head. Is there really to be an increase to that extent in the amount to be spent on afforestation? I have heard it suggested that while this special grant is being made this year that next year the expenditure—the ordinary expenditure, which was sanctioned before—will be cut down by an almost equivalent amount and that the Government are not really granting this extra money for afforestation, but are merely taking it out of one pocket and putting it into another. If that is so, what is the use
of it? Afforestation cannot be undertaken in fits and starts, with a large volume of expenditure one year and a great reduction the next. If afforestation is to be beneficial and profitable, it must be conducted on scientific lines and on a well-thought out plan spread over a considerable number of years and in regular rotation. If the Government attempt to carry it out in fits and starts, much of the money will be thrown away. I am concerned to notice that even the most vehement advocates of economy in the Press are at the present time crying out against the wasteful policy of the Government in cutting down expenditure on afforestation. It will involve the loss of that which they have already spent if they do so. It is desirable that on this Estimate that we should know if this money is to be spent on one year and taken away in the next and that we should have some information as to what is the policy of the Government in regard to expenditure on afforestation.

Mr. ROYCE: I should like to ask in connection with the land drainage proposals whether it is intended that the expenditure should only be on internal drainage. Speaking of my own part of the country there are plenty of opportunities for considerable employment of labour on drainage works, but these works should be done systematically if they are to be of any advantage, and the system necessary there is that they should start at the lower ends of the rivers, at the estuaries, and there make the necessay clearances so that the work higher up may be carried out effectively. There is no use in a man cleaning out his drains if his neighbour leaves the adjoining drains blocked up. The effects of his labour will be nullified. In Lincolnshire and Norfolk especially it is necessary that the estuaries should be cleared out before any effective upland drainage can be accomplished. It is primarily a question of dredging in many instances, but it involves a considerable and comprehensive scheme. I hope it will be found possible to make such a scheme effective and that some real permanent good shall ensue from the expenditure and the employment of labour which is now proposed. In this connection I am very sorry that the question of land reclamation has not been taken into consideration. It is possible on the coast in the immediate vicinity of the Wash to add
almost another county to England. Some hon. Members smile. I know that there are a number of impediments in the way, but there have been ample opportunities of removing those impediments. It is not for want of opportunity that this has not been done, and if it is not done a very large amount of the money now being voted will be thrown away and we shall have nothing to show for the expenditure of labour and money. Even if the cost of reclamation were to exceed the value of the land reclaimed you will have something to show for the expenditure of your money. I hope the Minister will be able to indicate that the Government have enlarged on their original proposals, and that they will consider a comprehensive scheme. Further, I hope they will take steps to give the necessary legal powers to enable the local authorities or the drainage authorities to utilise the opportunity now placed in their hands. Some of these authorities are delayed for want of the necessary orders, and these orders, I understand, can be quickly obtained if sufficient energy is shown. So far as my constituency is concerned, I am glad to say there is not very much unemployment. We are all very grateful for that fact, and it illustrates that if the Minister of Agriculture had only taken sufficient steps in regard to the right kind of cultivation he might have found scope for a great deal more labour on the land instead of sending some of our young fellows out to grow food in the Dominions, on lands worse than our own, and send it back here. The proposal of drainage, combined with that of land reclamation, offers an opportunity for really useful work, and as I understand the Minister of Agriculture is to administer this part of the fund, I hope he will be induced to enlarge his views on the subject, and will, at any rate, make a point of including estuary works in connection with the outfalls of our rivers, and add to that a scheme of land reclamation.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): As the questions of forestry and land improvement have been raised, it would be for the general convenience if I should say a word as to the proposals of the Government under these heads. Let me say at once that the object we have in view is not, primarily, either
forestry or land drainage. Our primary object is the employment of the unemployed men, and I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last, that what we want to do is to employ them in such a way that we shall have something tangible in the nature of an asset to show at the end. There is unfortunately a good deal of unemployment in country districts. It is not comparable in amount with the unemployment in towns, nor do I think it will be, but there is a certain amount and it seems to me as a Member of the Unemployment Committee that we should endeavour to do something to meet the unemployment in the country districts and also to have something valuable, from the utilitarian point of view, to show at the conclusion. We also thought that, in some cases, schemes undertaken in the neighbourhood of towns where there was a great deal of unemployment, might employ a certain number of townsmen. I am keeping closely in touch with the Minister of Labour so that where we can draft townsmen to a scheme, which is not very far off, we may, if desirable, employ a certain number of unemployed men from the towns. The primary object being employment, rather than either forestry or land improvement, we have sought to work on the principle of getting work as quickly as we can, and employing the greatest amount of labour. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott) mentioned that the Forestry Commissioners had a certain scheme laid down under the Forestry Act and approved of by the Treasury. Owing to reasons of economy that scheme was considerably curtailed. We now intend to extend it, and we are taking powers to expend £250,000 in the next six months on forestry in England, Scotland and Wales. The Forestry Commission extends to all three countries and we hope we may be able to employ in the near future something like 5,000 or 6,000 men on forestry in the country districts.

Mr. M. SCOTT: Is this really new money or is it being taken away from the grant which has already been made by Act of Parliament to the Forestry Commissioners?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I can answer that at once. This in no way interferes with the original forestry programme. Whether that programme is to be extended or curtailed in the future will not depend
in any way upon this particular grant. This is a special grant to employ unemployed people in forestry and the future of the forestry programme will depend upon other considerations altogether. You must not suppose because we are spending this now that it necessarily follows we shall curtail forestry expenditure in the future. It may have to be curtailed, but, if so, it will be on different grounds altogether. This is a special grant for a special purpose, which is the employment of men now out of work.
What we propose to do is this: The Forestry Commission will accelerate their programme of planting, and we hope to plant a greater area, probably 15,000 acres, in the coming winter. They also propose to acquire more land, which will he suitable for planting in the immediate future, and they propose to make grants to local authorities and to landowners for the purpose of inducing them to plant, and to plant at once. There are local authorities prepared to do it, and there are landowners who are perfectly ready. They have got the land, and the labour is available By making them a grant, as we contemplated in the original Forestry Act, a small grant compared with the total cost—it is proposed, I think, to give £3 an acre in the case of private landowners, and the total cost of planting will probably be £9 or £10 per acre; in the case of local authorities, we should make an even larger grant per acre—but we think in that way, in addition to what the Forestry Commissioners will do themselves, we can get a lot of planting done, employing labour which is ready to hand at the present time. I think this scheme can proceed at once. There need be no unnecessary delay, because, after all, the important thing with all this terrible unemployment about is to put your schemes in hand so as to get to work immediately, without legal delays and formalities, and I think we shall be able, not, indeed, economically, because employing men who are out of work is not an economical way of doing work, but we shall get a good deal of labour employed all over the country, in scattered districts—some near towns, some not so near—and we shall get a good deal of work put in hand, and I hope 5,000 or 6,000 men will be employed in the coming winter.
I come to land drainage. I know my hon. Friend the Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) is always very interested and takes a very progressive view of these matters, and he is always anxious for big reclamation schemes. I quite agree with him that we could reclaim very possibly a whole county in the neighbourhood of the Wash, but to get to work at once we should require Acts of Parliament, a tremendous amount of preliminary surveying, and organisation of all sorts and kinds, and also, inasmuch as the bulk of the unemployed do not exist in the neighbourhood of the Wash, but many miles away, we should have to bring people from a distance and set up an enormous hutted camp, which would run away with a very great part of the money, and we should probably not get to work for another seven or eight months, by which time, I hope, the distress from unemployment will be very much less than it is at the present time.

Mr. ROYCE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that this question has been brought up, not today, but for years, and that ample time has been given to the Government to make the necessary preparations?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, and not only has it been brought up, but we have experimented with it. We did so immediately after the War. We were asked at my Ministry to embark on a big reclamation scheme in the neighbourhood of Wainfleet, on the banks of the Wash, for the purpose of employing people out of work, and we did something. We reclaimed 500 or 600 acres, but it was a very uneconomical proposition. An enormous hutted camp was necessary. We brought people from a distance, and there was no particular amount of unemployment at that time. What was the result? It cost us about £160 an acre to reclaim that land, and the land is not worth £40 an acre to-day, and I say that a mere uneconomical proposition, and one which would take more time and be of less use for the purpose of employing men immediately, I cannot conceive.
As a member of the Unemployment Committee I considered very carefully, with my experts, what was the best way of employing men upon the land. Forestry was one, but, as a matter of fact, I have nothing to do with forestry myself. It belongs to the Forestry Commissioners,
but looking at it from the point of view of my Department alone, we came to this conclusion, that however much might be said for big reclamation schemes, by far the more useful plan, and the way in which you could get to work most quickly, was by adopting land drainage and improvement schemes—small schemes—all over the country, where there were no preliminaries to go through, where the work could be done at once, where men would be employed, not all concentrated in one spot, but near their own homes. We also realised this, that there is an enormous amount of land drainage which requires to be done. You have got, no doubt, drainage authorities in most parts of the country—drainage boards and what are called commissioners of sewers—and a great deal has been done in the past, but owing to the high cost of labour in recent years, a great deal of that work has been allowed to fall into decay, and by setting up a number of small schemes, clearing out water-courses, cutting new channels, getting rid of obstructions here and there, we found that a great deal of useful work could be accomplished, and we should have a very valuable asset in the fact that we should have a great deal of land, which, owing to the want of proper drainage, cannot be cultivated to-day or cannot be cultivated to the best advantage, which would be greatly improved as a result of our operations. Therefore, I succeeded in getting my colleagues on the Unemployment Committee to grant me £650,000 for the purpose of land drainage schemes in England and Wales, and a sum of £90,000 is being expended on the same purpose in Scotland by the Scottish Board of Agriculture.
What we propose to do, or rather what we have already done, is this. We have sent a circular, three weeks ago, to every drainage board in the country asking them to put up schemes to us. We have pointed out that if they will do that, and we approve the schemes, we will find all the money in the first instance—we will finance the schemes—and at the end we will recover only 35 per cent. Ordinarily, in land drainage schemes, the whole cost is borne by the locality, and it is done in this way. The drainage authority puts what is called a drainage rate upon all the riparian owners who may be held to benefit by the drainage carried out, but we could not ask these bodies to do
this work at once in a very uneconomic fashion, and expect them to find all the money. They simply would not do it. In the first place, the chances are that work done by unemployed labour will be very much more costly than the work that would be done ordinarily by their regular staff. They reckon it would cost probably twice as much as work done under ordinary circumstances. Then the work is all to be done at once. The boards would have to raise local rates from people who might be benefited, and naturally they would not want to rush in and do all this work at once. They would spread the work gradually over a number of years. Therefore, we said that if we were to get these people to work we must offer to pay a very substantial part; so we propose to find the whole of the money in the first instance, and instead of recovering all the money we shall recover only 35 per cent.
The answer to the circular has been very satisfactory. Although the circular has only been out between a fortnight and three weeks, no fewer than 22 schemes, involving an expenditure of about £75,000, have already been submitted to the Ministry, and we know that a great many other schemes are in preparation. We shall judge all those schemes, and as soon as we are satisfied that any one of them is satisfactory, and as soon as the House has given me this Vote, I shall proceed at once to set those schemes in operation, thereby employing unemployed labour and accomplishing something which will be valuable in the long run. I have told my officers to cut out all unnecessary formalities, to get right on as quickly as possible, to have no red tape—nothing of that sort—but simply to see that a scheme is sound from the engineering point of view and then go on and get the labour and get the men to work as quickly as possible. In other schemes it is proposed that the labour should all be obtained from the employment exchanges. We have brushed aside that regulation as regards the drainage schemes, because the ordinary man in the country districts does not go to an employment exchange. Therefore, we say, provided always that 75 per cent. of the labour is ex-service labour, we do not mind where the drainage authorities get the labour from, but as far as possible they are to be small schemes, so that labour can be employed in the district where it resides, and we shall not have
the costs of moving people from a distance and putting them up at a distance from their homes. I want to make sure that of this £650,000 the great bulk goes actually in employing labour. With regard to wages, we propose to pay the standard rates for unskilled agricultural labour in the district, as fixed by Conciliation Committees or otherwise. We do not in this case talk only of 75 per cent.

Mr. SIMM: Does that include their transit to the work?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope, as far as possible, to employ labour on the spot, but if there is transit it will have to be paid for.

Mr. SIMM: By whom?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Out of the grant.

Mr. SIMM: Not out of wages?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No. That is why particularly I want, as far as I can, to get the labour on the spot, so as not to have to spend the money which should go in wages in other directions. We do not insist on paying only 75 per cent. in this case, because agricultural wages have been coming down, and Conciliation Committees are at work, and we do not want in any way to prejudice their activities in one direction or in the other.

Mr. THOMAS: Is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has given instructions that the local rate shall be fixed because the wages have been coming down?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is because they have been coming down and because in many places they are not yet definitely fixed. They are, if I may say so, rather in a state of flux, and I did not want in any way, especially having regard to the fact that agricultural wages are much lower than other wages paid in towns, to prejudice the Conciliation Committees either one way or the other. There was a question whether we should not pay navvy rates of wages, which, of course, are very much higher than agricultural rates, and this may be called navvy work, but I said: "No, we cannot pay navvy rates. We are employing people in country districts who are largely casual labourers and who cannot do an ordinary navvy's work, but on the other hand," I said, "I do not want to
prejudice the case of the agricultural labourer by paying less than the rate fixed by the Conciliation Committees."
As regards other schemes, I have mentioned that over a great part of the country there are drainage boards, and where there are drainage boards we shall act through them, but there are other parts of the country where there are no drainage boards, but where it has been the habit of the Ministry, under the Drainage Act of 1918, very often to get together a number of landowners interested in the drainage of a particular watercourse or stream to agree on a voluntary scheme, in which case we recover the whole amount. Here, again, you cannot expect landowners to come forward now, in a hurry, and, on an uneconomical method, find all that money. But we want them to go forward as quickly as possible. We want to get labour employed, and we want to get it employed in districts where there is no drainage board. Therefore again we propose that if a county agricultural committee can arrange a voluntary scheme with local landowners, in places where there is no drainage board, we will finance the scheme and recover at least 35 per cent, or such larger sum as may be agreed upon between the county agricultural committee and the local landowners. In that case, I think we shall get work undertaken quickly and at a very early date, and we may be able to bring a great deal of relief hi country districts. This scheme will be put forward at once. I am only waiting for this Vote. As soon as this Vote is passed by the House we can give the signal to proceed, and I hope, as a result of this scheme, in addition to what we are doing in the matter of forestry, we may be able to employ at least 10,000 men, and probably more, in the next few months in country districts.
Of course, I agree that does not employ everybody, or anything like it. I agree you may say that it only touches the fringe of the problem of unemployment, but, after all, it is something. It is valuable as far as it goes, and it may be the means of getting other work started, and, in addition to that, as my right hon. Friend opposite said, we shall have something valuable done, namely, the land drained and improved, and made capable of producing more than it did before on
account of not being drained. Those are the measures of the Government for forestry and land drainage in so far as they affect country districts. I think they are valuable so far as they go. I think they will cause a good deal of labour to be employed, and, having surveyed the whole field of activities of my Ministry, and very carefully considered how, as a Ministry of Agriculture, we can best help in this unemployment problem, I am convinced that, by the small local schemes undertaken all over the country, using the greatest possible amount of money in wages, and not in needless surveying, needless local expenses, and moving things about from place to place, we can expend it best on the lines I have suggested. I hope, therefore, the Committee will approve the proposal I am making.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: Some of the Members who have been addressing the Committee on this Vote complained of the temporary absence of Ministers from the Front Bench. I have to complain of the permanent absence all through these Debates of the only representative of Ireland on the Front Bench. While Bills were going through their First, Second, and Third Readings and the Committee and Report stages, we have not had the presence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, so that I think I have good reason for complaining. I feel that if I were Chief Secretary for Ireland, which, thank Heavan! I am not, and never likely to be, I should see that Ireland got her fair share of everything going, and I should take an interest in the Bills as they were passing through the House. The Committee knows perfectly well that, during the past few weeks on these important questions, we had the greatest difficulty in getting some of this legislation applied to Ireland, and I think if the Minister who is responsible for my part of the country showed a little more interest, it would be a great help. I have been greatly interested in the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, and that is just the position I would like the Chief Secretary to take up so far as we are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken with regard to the expenditure of his Department in forestry and drainage in connection with England, Wales, and Scotland. I was particularly interested
and struck in hearing how much he was in touch with this subject with regard to these countries, but we have nobody on the Front Bench who is in touch with those things in connection with Ireland. I have repeatedly tried to get information during the past four or five weeks from the Cabinet Committee dealing with unemployment, and within the last few days I have again written to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in regard to certain points connected with unemployment and with regard to Bills that are passing through this House, and particularly with regard to this Vote. I have had the usual reply to all these requests, that my letter is under consideration, and I am still without that information. Therefore I think I have good reason to complain.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture quite rightly said that, with regard to drainage, they ought to look to tangible results before they undertook anything of the kind. I quite agree also as to the time it would take in order to get the necessary survey for the purpose of carrying out large works, but what I would point out with regard to drainage in my own country is that for years and years we have pointed out the tangible results which would come from the employment of some money in connection with the drainage surrounding the Bann. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Bann drainage!"] I do not think it is a matter for laughter. It is a very serious matter for the farmers and people living in that area, who very frequently have to use boats to get out of their houses. Whenever the drainage of the Bann is mentioned in this House, it is a cause of derision on the part of some hon. Members. For 60 years, I admit, it has been annually before this House. For the first time we now have an opportunity of having this matter carried out. It is not a question of delay with regard to survey, because the survey of that area has been lying in the Irish Office for years. There was one occasion on which the Irish Government were just about to start these works when there was a change of Government, and the matter was pigeon-holed again. The survey is there; all the facts are there. All that they want is to get this into operation. I put the question to my right hon. Friend again, and I hope, if he is not able to give an answer to-day, that
he will soon be able to do so, because the people of that district have appealed so often with regard to what is a righteous cause, and a cause that will bring great benefit to the district, and tangible results. If it be possible under this scheme the councils particularly interested might get together, appoint a committee to look into the entire subject, and, if they approach the Department through the Irish Office, I want to know if this money may be spent towards that end by these county councils. I believe they are ready at any moment to undertake all the work. All that they want is the assistance of the Government, and I want to assure the Committee that the idea underlying these Bills and this Vote will be carried out in the way of giving employment. Many men could be employed on this work, and it is work that will show tangible results. I do hope I may have some satisfactory information to convey to my people at home.
Some of the Scottish Members of the House have rather complained with regard to this Vote, and the schemes which underlie it. I think, myself, that Scottish Members are to be congratulated on the advantages which they have received under this Vote, and under the Acts connected therewith, as compared with England, Wales and Ireland. An hon. Member shakes his head, but if he had been present at some of the Debates he would be aware that the Lord Advocate had secured very much better terms for the local authorities in Scotland. I and others have appealed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to see if he could not get for England, Wales and Ireland the very same terms as were granted for Scotland, and he promised, in the course of the Debate, to see if the same advantages could not be secured. But I am afraid that promise did not fully materialise in his Amendment, because in Scotland the local authorities can spread their loans over a period of five years, and longer if the Board of Health approve, whereas under the terms with regard to England, Wales and Ireland they are bound to repay before 1st April, 1923.

Sir A. MOND: I think if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the Bill as it left the Report stage, he will find that I gave the same terms as to Scotland.

Sir W. ALLEN: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the Bill as reprinted distinctly says the 1st April, 1923, so far as Clause 3 is concerned; that is, the local authorities must repay temporary loans in the other three countries by 1st April, 1923, and the Scottish Measure is for a period of five years. Therefore, I may congratulate my friends in Scotland on having secured so much better terms. Of course, if my right hon. Friend shows that I am incorrect, I am prepared to withdraw anything I have said. I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman who proposed this reduction. From the peculiar state of affairs that exist, certain local authorities pay different wages for the same work. There is something peculiar about that, and I think it is a matter really for adjustment. It would appear that the particular circular of October, to which reference has been made, in which the wages question has been mentioned, is headed "England and Wales." I wonder will the same curious conditions obtain in regard to Scotland and Ireland? I think it is very interesting. The right hon. Gentleman does not tell us that a similar circular was sent to Scotland and Ireland. I doubt very much whether there was any circular sent to Ireland, because the Bill as first introduced did not apply to Ireland. The result of it all is that Scotland, Wales, and England have had the advantage of knowing that these Measures were about to be introduced, and have had their schemes prepared and sent in.
The Minister of Agriculture just now told us about drainage schemes that have been sent in. We have had no opportunity to do this. I would again like to make my complaint, so that it might be reported in the records of this House, as to the Minister who is responsible for the conduct of Irish affairs. It would help us very, very much who come from Ireland if the Minister in charge of Irish affairs was present, and would take advantage of the benefits that will come to the particular Department he represents. I doubt very much whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland knows anything at all of the Bills that are passing through this House. I doubt very much if he knows whether or not they refer to Ireland. I hope the questions to the Minister of Health in regard to the few points I have spoken about to-night will
be met with a satisfactory answer, as I know that the local authorities at home are most anxious to get on with the work in order to assist unemployment.

Mr. G. EDWARDS: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has under-estimated the number of unemployed in the villages of the country. I should like to remind him that the small schemes to which he has pointed to-day of land, drainage, and afforestation will not meet the case. The rural workers are in a very bad position. If he means to do something, he had better do it quickly, because delay in this matter is as bad as it can be for the villagers. We have heard it said before that some of this unemployment was due to high wages, strikes, and lock-outs. I did not believe it when it was said against other classes of labour. It cannot be said here in reference to the agricultural classes. Unemployment to a large extent is beyond their control. Some of this unemployment in the country is caused by bad farming, and this can be altered. The land drainage scheme is far too small. We have thousands of acres in England lying absolutely derelict which could employ thousands of the unemployed if this land was brought under a proper system of drainage. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) and myself, if this were carried out in an efficient manner these acres could be made to produce food.
The Minister of Agriculture said that some of this suggested expenditure was uneconomic. I do not believe it—and he will pardon me for putting it in that fashion. But would it not be far better to put these men who are out of work to something, even if the land was not quite worth it in that sense, for the money spent would produce an asset of some sort. I also want to remind the House that while you have a considerable amount of unemployment to deal with in agriculture at the present time, it will become greater in the coming months. I do desire to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture to think this matter over, and, if possible, induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government to increase the amount of money that can be spent in this direction. I cannot imagine money spent for a more useful
purpose than for land drainage and afforestation. I could take him to my own county and show him no less than 3,000 acres of land producing nothing, except rabbits. There is no thought for the peasantry, only the pheasants. That land could be properly cultivated.
These schemes, if pushed forward with energy and foresight, would be an asset to the nation in the future. Some of us pointed all this out to the right hon. Gentleman a year ago. We pointed out that, if the proper measures were taken, there were thousands of acres that could be reclaimed of the finest land in England, some of it from Lynn to Wainfleet. This land could produce not only potatoes but fruit and other food, always assuming it is properly reclaimed and brought under appropriate cultivation. The excuse that some of this would take seven or eight months to attend to is no excuse at all, because, as I have said, 12 months ago these matters were pointed out to the Minister. I hope the Government will see their way clear to follow the course suggested by some of us, and especially to help the employment of honest labour. I have some instances, which I could multiply a hundredfold, of the distress caused by the breadwinner being out of work. Here is a case of a husband, with a wife and nine children, who has not done any work for nine months. In another case the unemployed father's position and lack of proper food has so preyed upon the mother's mind that she has had to be sent to an asylum.

7.0 P.M.

Captain FITZROY: I do not want to speak on the schemes of afforestation and land drainage. I merely want to ask the Minister one or two questions. I think his schemes will do a lot of good for the employment of those who cannot find work, and if they are properly administered we should have a tangible result for the money spent by the State. As regards the employment of the unemployed, I understand that both in the scheme for land drainage and in the scheme for afforestation the Minister—quite rightly—proposes so far as possible to make use of local labour. I recognise from his speech that he understands that agricultural labourers, who will chiefly be affected by this proposal, are not under the Unemployed Insurance Act, nor do they register at Labour Exchanges. I should like to ask him how he is going
to make quite sure that this work of afforestation and land drainage will be given to what I might call the genuine unemployed. We have often found in rural districts that Government schemes attract labour which is not really unemployed at all, labour which in the ordinary course of events would be employed on the land. I understand that in the afforestation schemes the Government propose to give grants of £3 an acre to private owners who are ready to plant. The scheme for land drainage is very often misunderstood. It only proposes to deal with what I might call the clearing out of rivers and waterways, the removing of obstacles, and so forth. A lot of the land in England at the present time is not producing the amount of food which it ought to and could produce, not for the reason that the rivers want cleaning out and the waterways want clearing, but because the old land drains are blocked and out of use. They were in that condition before the War, but they are very much worse now. In his present financial condition the unfortunate landowner in this country finds it quite impossible to bear the expense necessary to put this land in a proper condition as regards drainage. Would it not be economically sound to make the same grants to landowners for field drains as are being given to owners for afforestation? You would get just as large an asset for the nation through the increased food grown on land properly drained as you would by afforestation. I trust the Minister of Agriculture will consider that suggestion.

Mr. MILLS: I should like to associate myself with the complaint which was made in such eloquent terms by the veteran leader of the agricultural labourers. The last speaker (Captain Fitzroy) has intimated his hope that the genuine unemployed, as distinct from those who may be mistermed unemployed, would be absorbed in any works of this character. There would, of course, be some genuine unemployed who would not be attracted by any possible scheme of relief, because under any set of circumstances they would get much more benefit than under any scheme proposed. Possibly another House and another Government might deal with this question of unemployment on a scale more adequate than that we are discussing to-night. In December, 1918, a long time before we
had three or four millions of unemployed, we sent a deputation to the Prime Minister, who gave us his reasons for recognising the work that had been put in in the factories during the War, and outlined a suggested scheme for linking up the whole of the rural areas of Great Britain.
Although, of course, the schemes adumbrated by the Minister of Agriculture are better than nothing, I cannot see why that right hon. Gentleman in this particular connection cannot work with the Ministry of Transport and the whole of the other Ministries in order that at this time, when so much surplus labour is waiting to be employed, some real scheme of reconstruction of our rural life might be evolved. At the present time, all produce in Kent, Essex and the Eastern Counties has to come up through the bottle-neck to the profiteering centre in Spitalfields and Covent Garden and other places in London, whereas a sound scheme of light railways, as foreshadowed by the Prime Minister to that deputation in 1918, would be a real material value, not in the immediate future, but in years to come, in linking up the whole of the East Coast north of the Thames with the south of the Thames. For instance, a tunnel under the Thames at a point in Essex connecting up with Kent would do a real service to the whole of the country. It would be a scheme that should appeal to the Government to ladle out far more money than they appear to be willing to do at the present moment.
In dealing with all these questions of relief schemes, hon. Members of the Labour party who have spoken have put the point of view of that party and of the trade unionists in regard to the proposals set out to-day. There is no need for me to go into them at length, but I must say this, that practically every local authority has at present resolutions on its records, resolutions dealing with questions of labour, the Fair Wage Clause, and all the other consequences of trade union and labour organisation for a couple of generations. I associate myself with the views my hon. Friends have expressed, that no one can convince the man in the street that the proposal to deal with relief work by fixing a scale of wages less than that paid to the ordinary trade unionist in the same industry is calculated to do other than to
cause suspicion and resentment in the minds of those who are unemployed. It is bound to have that result, for the unemployed are not unemployed because they desire to be unemployed. I know the argument has been used, and it will always be used by those who depend on a surplus of labour, that men are unemployed because they are thriftless. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) is one of the most distinguished advocates of that line of thought. He has, however, never given the House the benefit of his researches into the savings of the working classes during the War, into the amount withdrawn from the Post Office Savings Bank and the National Savings Certificates and the sum paid out in trade union benefit, as well as all the endeavours made by the working people, collectively and voluntarily, before they appealed to the Government for financial aid. If such researches were made the suggestion that all who are unemployed are in that condition because of their thriftlessness would be disposed of as being merely the statement of persons who have wandered into this House by accident.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) was bursting to tell the Minister of Agriculture that in his particular constituency agriculture was bound up with the restoration of piers and quays. What is true of the Western Isles of Scotland is equally true of many of the piers and quays on the Kentish coast. The storm of last week played havoc with the piers and quays along the whole Kentish coastline. The local authorities responsible are already bankrupt through trying to deal with the London problem, which should have been dealt with by this House. They are completely unable to do anything with these piers and quays. When we are paying out money to men who work on these schemes, most of it comes back to the market, even as much as 20s. in the £. Therefore, because it will radiate money and will circulate the sums that are paid in wages, I hope this particular suggestion will be considered.

Sir A. MOND: The suggestion made by the hon. Member who spoke last relating to piers and quays is well worthy of consideration. No doubt, if any responsible proposals are put up, they will be considered in connection with all the
schemes that are being undertaken. The hon. Member for North Armagh (Sir W. Allen) asked me several questions. Apparently he is dissatisfied with those whose duty it is to watch over the interests of Ireland in this case, and he complains that Ireland is not getting as much money as she ought. If that is so, it is a novel experience for hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom, because, on the whole, Irish representatives usually have much the best of any bargain that is going. His specific question was with regard to the Bann drainage. The drainage of the Bann has to do with the Irish Board of Agriculture, and has nothing to do with my Department. I am in no way responsible, neither have I any money to spend on it. If the hon. Member wants money for this drainage scheme, the hoary antiquity of which makes it the most venerable of all schemes, for I believe it has been discussed for 130 years, he must go to the Irish Board of Agriculture and to the Irish Office to see if they have any money.

Mr. SIMM: Is there any money for Ireland?

Sir A. MOND: Not for drainage. I want to deal for a few moments with a larger question, which is very important. It has been raised in the Debate by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) and in the form of a Motion by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). Exception has been taken and voiced in various quarters to a circular issued to local authorities by my Department on the 21st October. It dealt with the question of rates of wages for unskilled labour for the probationary period of six months—I want to lay stress on the question of the probationary period, for it is very essential—for unskilled men taken on at relief works carried out by local authorities. No one has pleaded harder than hon. Members opposite for work and not for doles. I quite sympathise with that plea. One of the first difficulties that I find when I meet a local authority and talk to it about work instead of doles is this, they say that relief works are so colossally costly and so out of all proportion that it is very much cheaper to give ten people doles than one man work. All the figures of every local authority with regard to relief work will hear out the statement as to the
enormous cost, the quite fantastic cost, of employing unskilled people in these works. That was one of the points that met me in a conference I had with local authorities. They said, "It is perfectly unreasonable to ask us to pay unskilled people to do work which we do not want to do at full rates of wages which we would pay skilled men for work which we want done." They say, "Unless we are allowed to pay less than the full rate we will not undertake relief works." Some local authorities are being intimidated on this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) has appealed to us partly on the ground of cowardice and partly expediency—

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not said anything of the kind, and it was on the ground of expediency. What I pointed out was that if you only pay 75 per cent. of the rate you get less work done than you are getting done now. When the right hon. Gentleman says that local authorities object to pay the full rate, how does he account for the fact that the Association of Municipal Corporations have passed a resolution protesting very strongly against the 75 per cent. rate?

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member pointed out that the work would not be efficient, and that the output would not be so great, and that logically it would be reasonable to pay less. Then he asks, "Is it worth while?" What does he mean? The various societies are bringing pressure to bear on municipal corporations to pay the standard rates, and under these circumstances I call that cowardice. The hon. Member for Ladywood calls it expediency, but surely it is cowardice because it is a dole, and what the hon. Member said proved that it was worth while. This is a very important principle, not merely in the general interests of unemployment, but in the general interests of labour. It would not be worth while to create any kind of trouble. Who pays for unemployed relief? On the whole the ratepayers, and who are they? [An HON. MEMBER: "The unemployed as well!"] Yes, they are the unemployed as well, and in many cases they are workmen who are working half-time, and making a less wage than they would get if they were employed at full time on relief works. Is it reasonable that a man
working three days a week in a colliery or a cotton mill should get less money than a man who will not take a penny off the ordinary trade union rate? These people are being given employment on work of a temporary character which need not be done, but is being done because we want to find them work. Therefore I say you are extending a charity towards them, and you want to mix this up with your standard wage and your trade union rate. Do not do anything of the kind. You are not employing men who would otherwise get a standard wage on that job. You might as well say that you ought to pay an apprentice the same rate as a fully qualified artisan. No one would defend a provision of that kind. You want to give these men time by a probationary period to qualify themselves for the work, and when they are qualified they get the full rate. That is analogous to your apprenticeship system, and it is untrue to say that that is an attack on the, standard wage. Hon. Members opposite say it is an attack upon direct labour, but it is nothing of the kind. Would it be an advantage that the contractor should be allowed to pocket the difference between the 75 per cent. and the full rate of wages?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: These people cannot earn the full rate, and yet they can contract for the full rate.

Sir A. MOND: The local authorities are dealing with relief. They will go to the Poor Law guardians and select the men, not according to their industrial fitness, but according to their destitution. They will engage the man with a large family dependent upon him in preference to a bachelor, but a contractor could not work on those lines. You would have no control over a contractor who would get the best labour he could, and it would make a difference in the profit. The Minister of Labour and myself have both been most anxious that nothing shall be done which would interfere with the normal standard rate which has been called for and obtained by trade unions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said that this is a challenge to the Fair Wages Clause, but it is nothing of the kind. It is a special exceptional rate for special exceptional purposes, and it is an alternative between doles and work. You cannot afford, and you ought not in the interests of future
production, to fix a rate which may be so high that a man doing productive work will actually obtain less than a man working on relief work, because in that way you might draw your men out of the workshop, and you certainly run that danger.

Mr. J. JONES: You know nothing about it.

Mr. MILLS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that a man working in a workshop under decent shelter would voluntarily go out to work on the road in the middle of January?

Sir A. MOND: If I were a workman, and I could get £4 a week on one job and only £2 a week on the other, I think I should be prepared to make the sacrifice of working on the road.

Mr. HALLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those in charge of the relief jobs would determine who would be employed, and is it not a fact that the whole of these men are working alternate weeks?

Sir A. MOND: I know the administration can do a good deal. Sometimes they are working alternate weeks and sometimes alternate shifts. The first circular which was issued laid down no scale at all, but merely that there should be a substantially lower wage, and I purposely did not wish to be driven to fixing any hard and fast line, knowing the difficulty of laying down any conditions which would be likely to create hardship and difficulty. The local authorities wrote and said: "You must lay down some figure; we do not know what 'substantially lower' means." The Cabinet Unemployment Committee laid down what, on the whole, I think is a fairly reasonable figure. The hon. Member for Ladywood asked if it was going to make any difference in the efficiency of the work if the figure was fixed at 50 per cent., and an arbitrary figure of 25 per cent. has been suggested.
One hon. Member mentioned the Cardiff case. It has been pointed out that those working alternate weeks would get the advantage of unemployment benefit if they are working alternate shifts. I should think in 5 per cent. of the cases you may arrive at a figure in regard to working three days, and at the end of the week the earnings may be of an in-
sufficient amount. After considering various matters to overcome the practical difficulties the Unemployment Cabinet Committee at its last meeting concluded that people working three days only should have a reduction of 12½ per cent. instead of 25 per cent., and I think that would be a very reasonable figure. One hon. Member referred to two men working at different rates on the same job, but he did not say whether they were equally good workmen. Does he say that one man producing 50 per cent. more should be paid the same as the others? It is quite impossible to lay down Regulations which in all cases and under all circumstances would produce the best possible results. I have given a great deal of time to the consideration of this matter, and it has caused me a great deal of anxiety.
One course open to us is to do nothing and have no relief work. A second course would be to pay on your relief works the same as outside for work you want to do by skilled men. The third course, which is the one adopted by the Government, is an alternative between the two, and it is that people who may be skilled in one direction but unskilled in the, work they are put to and whose work is very costly, that they are to have for a certain period a proportionate reduction until they get to their full productivity when they will be paid the full rates. I cannot see why anybody should regard that policy as unreasonable, unfair, or unbusinesslike. It seems to me in every way sensible and economical because we want to make the money go as far as we can. From an economical point of view this arrangement does not affect in any way the standard wage for a man skilled at an industry in the district in which he lives, and I am sorry that that impression should have been created. I hope that idea will be wiped out by what I have said to-night, and I trust hon. Members opposite will help me to wipe it out, because they know that that is neither the result nor the intention of the proposal we are making. I will now quote an important letter which appeared on the 12th October from one of the members of the Unemployment Grants Committee of which Lord St. Davids is the chairman:
A few months ago I was invited to join the Unemployment Grant Committee. So soon as acquainted with the system on which grants were made I raised the question of the payment of trade union wages on work
artificially provided for relief, but I was informed that the question had been fully discussed and that we were instructed to proceed on those lines. The result has been that we have disbursed some £2,000,000 of public money at an average weekly wage paid to competent and incompetent alike exceeding £4 a week.
That was last year. This year the amount will he £3 10s. That will be the average rate for unskilled labour on relief work, and one can justify that rate of wages with the rates paid to skilled men in their own industry all over the country. I confidently appeal to the Committee to support the Government in a bonâ-fide endeavour requiring, perhaps, some courage in view of the opposition it was sure to arouse, to differentiate between normal work and relief work, and to differentiate rightly, firmly, and reasonably between the standard wage and the wage of an abnormal character. Having said these few words, I should like to ask the Committee to come, if possible, to an early decision on the Motion of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas).

Sir W. ALLEN: May I ask with regard to this sum of £5,500,000 for the purposes of land drainage and forestry, if it applies to Ireland, and if a penny of it is to be spent in Ireland? I am afraid I was not present when the right hon. Gentleman dealt with that point.

Sir A. MOND: I dealt with that point in the absence of the hon. and gallant Member, and I pointed out that as far as land drainage work was concerned, none of the money would go to Ireland. Money for such purposes would have to be obtained from the Irish Board of Agriculture or the Irish Office.

Sir W. ALLEN: Is there any Member on the Committee representing Ireland?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state who is to decide as to the needs of Scotland. He told us that advances would be made according to the needs of that country. Will the amount be decided by the right hon. Gentleman himself or by a Special Committee?

Sir A. MOND: The decision lies with the Treasury. It may be fixed by the Cabinet Committee of which the Secretary for Scotland is a Member.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Hon. Members may be impatient and wish to get to their
dinner, but it is only right when Parliament is called together to discuss this question that we should have an opportunity of voicing here the difficulties under which local authorities are now labouring. The point I want to make is one which, I believe, has not yet been referred to; it is as to the adequacy of the grant which the Minister is making to local authorities for work of a non-remunerative character. The right hon. Gentleman offers a contribution of 65 per cent. for half the period of the loan up to 15 years. That means at the most that the local authorities can only get 32½ per cent. of the cost of this work, which the Minister himself admits they would not take in hand at the present time if it were not for the abnormal conditions of unemployment. I submit with all respect that this is a burden which should not be placed on the shoulders of the ratepayers, but which should be borne to a larger extent on the National Exchequer, dealing with this question as a national problem. Where you have, as is the fact in so many cases, local rates amounting to from 20s. to 30s. in the £, it is impossible for the local authorities to do what the Government wish in the way of these non-remunerative works if they are to bear 67 per cent. of the cost. In my own district we have work in hand costing a quarter of a million sterling, and I am informed by the local authorities that that means an addition to the rates of 9d. in the £. We are only employing 300 men for half a week each for a period of three months. That means in effect, that for every 1,000 men who are going to be employed for but half a week for three months, it will cost 2s. 6d. extra on the rates. When you have rates amounting to 30s. in the £, I submit, with all respect to the House, that is an unfair burden to place on the locality. I submit it is both unreasonable and unfair and I appeal to the Minister and to the Cabinet to increase the amount which they have allocated for this purpose, so that instead of giving 65 per cent. merely for half the period of the loan, they should give it for the whole period of the loan or should increase the amount to 75 per cent. at least, because the work is, undoubtedly, owing to the price of material and labour, costing much more than it would do if it were undertaken in the ordinary course of events.
You are putting a burden on the local authorities which they cannot possibly bear. It simply means that owing to the lack of employment, men will have to go to the guardians and the burden will come again on the ratepayers. Where men would have been satisfied to work for 25s. or 30s. a week so long as they could retain their independence, you are driving them to the guardians where they will get 45s. or 50s. weekly. Therefore, for the sake of economising on these relief works, I appeal to the Government to increase their grant from the Exchequer. The present proposal is uneconomical from both a local and a national point of view. We have been told you want to get costs down. If that is an excellent theory to apply to wages, it is equally good as applied to local charges and rating. If you are going to pile up rates in this way you are putting a burden for all time on industry, which will handicap it and prevent it from competing in the markets of the world. Therefore in the interests of industry as a whole and in the interests of necessitous localities, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter and see if he cannot get from the Treasury a larger proportion for those areas which are known as necessitous areas and where the rate of unemployment varies from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the population. I believe the right hon. Gentleman's sympathies are with the large industrial areas and I hope he will do what he can to secure some further concessions for them.

Mr. SIMM: I should like to express my disappointment at the statement we have had from the President of the Board of Agriculture. Many of us are of opinion that more relief should be given to overburdened areas. We have had lately a very interesting speech from the President of the Board, and that speech like the Debates which have taken place during the last fortnight contained more sound than substance. But I am very much afraid that after the right hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon, he has whittled down what might be done under the head of land drainage almost to nothing. We are told that the Minister has managed to get a sum of £600,000 from the Exchequer for this work. We have altogether about 2,000,000 people out of work in this country. The right hon.
Gentleman told us he expected to be able to employ 10,000 men on land drainage and on clearing our waterways, and so on. I want to endorse what has been said by various people as to the land of this country being in need of drainage. In Northumberland, I am informed, there has been no systematic land drainage for the past 40 years. I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to find work for men in need of it, there is no better way than by undertaking an extensive system of land drainage throughout the country. Large areas of land in different parts of the country are water-logged at certain times of the year, and much of the work could be done at a wage of not more than 36s. a week—a not very tempting wage.

Mr. HAYWARD: May I draw attention to the fact that an hon. Member is reading a newspaper in this House? Is it in order for him to do so?

The CHAIRMAN: No, it is not.

Mr. SIMM: I only want to urge on the Minister of Agriculture that he should not rest content with the money which he has obtained from the Government, and that instead of seeking to spend £600,000 he should go in for an outlay of not less than £6,000,000. Some real attempt might thereby be made to relieve the urban district and urban councils of a portion of their burden, and certainly work could well be found for at least 100,000 men if only the President of the Board of Agriculture would go back to the Government and ask for ten times the sum which has been granted in order that work may be done in agricultural areas.

Mr. J. JONES: By the amount of cheering which the speech of the Minister of Health obtained, one would have imagined that we were back in the days before the trade union movement became sufficiently respectable to receive political consideration. We are led to understand now that the work which is going to be given under the scheme proposed by the Government is work which is not highly desirable or necessary—it is simply a bone to be thrown to the dog. We are describing the schemes of work that are now going to be established under the Government's proposals as relief work, and they have been described as charity. Those of us who are members of local authorities as well as Members of the
House of Commons recognise that it will not be the right hon. Gentleman who will have to face the bricks; it will be the men and women who will have to administer the scheme. We have been appealed to to give preference to ex-service men, and we are carrying out that proposal, because we believe that those men are entitled to the redemption of some of the promises that right hon. Gentlemen opposite made to there. But are we going to tell them that they are worth less, after fighting for their country, than the minimum trade union rate of wages for which we have had to fight so long? Are we to tell those heroes, who have been promised a land fit for heroes to live in, that, after having fought for their country, they are 25 per cent. less worthy of consideration than the trade unionist working on the job next door for the same employer? Is that the patriotic cry and promise that was put forward to those men when they were asked to place their lives at the disposal of their country?
May I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that we are carrying out relief works to-day, and have been, on our own account, before these schemes came into operation at all? The West Ham Corporation, which is one of the poorest in the country, has been employing about 1,000 men on an average three days a week, and paying them the full rates. We would not pay them any less. We are not going to take advantage of their poverty to give employers an excuse. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say that this is not an attack upon the standard of comfort or the standard of living. There are thousands of men out of work to-day who, through sheer starvation, have ceased to pay their contributions to their unions. They have no means with which to pay, particularly in the unskilled unions. There will be two jobs, one done by a contractor and the other by the municipality. What will be the tendency in the case of the contractor? He says, "The town council are getting men to work at 25 per cent. less than the union rate, and you will have to work for me for the same price as the town council are getting it done for." The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that the only people who were at work on relief works were men who did not understand the business, who were not skilled at the
occupation. But navvies and builders' labourers, in the East End of London, to-day form a very large proportion of the unemployed workers. It is not so bad in the skilled trades, but it is very bad in the so-called unskilled trades. Will those navvies and labourers, who are used to this particular kind of work—the making of roads and building work—be allowed to draw their full trade union rate of wages on a relief job, so-called?

Sir A. MOND: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. I am considering it at the present moment, and it is a very fair point.

Mr. JONES: I am very pleased to hear that the Government are considering it. I hope that at the same time they will remember that Tommy Atkins made roads in France, and that the ex-service man, when he comes back after having learned his job in the face of German bullets, will be able to get the full trade union rate of wages when he does the same job without the same risk. We venture to ask, with reference to all this talk about uneconomic work, why, if we are going to apply this to labourers on the works of public authorities, should it not be applied to Cabinet Ministers? They are not all equally clever. Some of them shift their jobs so often that we do not know what they really are. One day they are Presidents of the Board of Trade and the next day they are Chancellors of the Exchequer. They have not got to put in six months' apprenticeship for their job. They automatically become qualified immediately for the full trade union rate of wages, and I believe they would go on strike at once if anyone suggested that they should draw less. In fact, I remember one of them who said he had been a trade unionist all his life, and because some of his critics pointed out that he was getting £5,000 a year when he himself said that no man was worth more than £500, he said he had been a trade unionist all his life and would stick to his job and stick to his price.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Was he a Labour man?

Mr. JONES: Yes; he never tried to blackleg his superiors.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: He lost his job.

Mr. JONES: Yes, all good men do. But so far as we are concerned, we say that this circular is a direct attack upon trades unionism, whether you recognise it or not. Some hon. Members seem to be under the impression that the trade union rate is the last word in regard to wages. It is not. It is a minimum rate—a standard minimum rate. If an employer wants to encourage his men he will, as the best employers do, pay more than the standard rate and offer inducements by way of bonus over and above the standard rate. To us the trade union rate is simply a minimum. What is the situation to-day? The right hon. Gentleman says it is possible, on a relief job, to have men working and be receiving inure than skilled men would be receiving at their ordinary normal employment. I have administered these relief schemes in the past, and I suppose I shall have something to do with them now, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we cannot employ all the men in our own district who are out of work. We have 15,000 men out of work in West Ham, and no one imagines that we can find work for them all. All we can do is to divide amongst them as well as we can, on fair and equitable lines, the amount of work we shall be able to do. That will mean that we shall be able to give each man work about one week in a month, and yet we are told that while we can only give one week's work in a month, we must not pay the man trade union wages for the week's work that he does. What we ask for is liberty to pay and give the conditions suitable to the district in which we have to administer the scheme. Do not establish these cut-and-dried arrangements and tie us up with red tape. These men are not going to be employed regularly, but only intermittently, and therefore we say that it is a direct attack upon the standard of life, whatever hon. Members may say. We on these Benches, however much we may be misrepresented outside, cannot agree to the proposition that in this particular kind of work there shall be this reduction of the standard of life for the great mass of the workers. We have already suffered great reductions in wages. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, in a trade with which he is well acquainted, wages have gone down to £3 7s. 6d. a week. Would he like to maintain a family on that wage
under present conditions? We have been compelled to accept it because circumstances are against us, and yet here we have to go down below that, and ask men who are only guaranteed about one week's work in four to accept this miserable rate, which is going to affect all the wages in the neighbourhood. So far as we are concerned we make the strongest possible protest we can against the Government adopting a policy of this character.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman himself felt a little uncomfortable when he was trying to draw that subtle distinction between directly employed labour and contract labour. The contractor is to pay the full rate of wages because he can pick his men; but the unfortunate public authority, according to the right hon. Gentleman, has to select the most deserving class for work, and not the best workers, and therefore they must pay less wages. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that any local authority carries on its relief works on those lines—that they take the C 3 men in preference to the A 1 men to do the job?

Sir A. MOND: That is not what I said. The local authorities will look at the size of the families of the men and the conditions of destitution rather than to ability to do the job.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should be sorry for the town council whose borough engineer selected his men according to their necessities instead of according to their ability to do his work. He would not do it. With so many unemployed to pick from, he would pick the men who he thought would do the work best. Everyone knows that the immediate result of this will be, not that the contractor pays the full rate of wages while directly employed labour gets 75 per cent., but that the contractor will come down, too; and as soon as the contractor in that industry comes down you will have wages all round being brought down to 75 per cent. As the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said, it will be in effect a direct attack on labour all round in order to bring down wages. But what pleased me in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Government have discovered a matter of principle to which they must stick. It is true that they
are only going to stick to it for six months, but it is a matter of principle with them to pay 75 per cent. for six months. After that time the principle goes. It is very pleasing to see even this temporary adherence to principle, and I hope that the habit will become catching on the Government Bench. In listening to the speech, not of the Minister of Health but of the Minister of Agriculture, I felt rather like Alice with the looking glass. I could not make out how the Government stand. Six months ago from all those Benches appeals were going out to the Government to cut down expenditure. In order to improve trade, in order to increase employment, the Government were to cut down expenditure. Now, from almost the identical persons comes the appeal to the Government to spend more money in order to improve the trade of the country and to increase employment. I wonder which is right. I wonder whether the Government know which is right. I wonder whether the three Graces who really run the St. Davids Committee—the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health—have really come to the same conclusion about this. The Minister of Agriculture evidently thinks that the more money he can get to spend the better it is going to be for employment, trade and everything else. In fact, he is quite proud that £75,000 has been demanded of him already for drainage schemes. He is getting on. If he has his way he will assist the land drainage scheme, which for 150 years has been turned down as not possible. Apparently you can spend money everywhere, to increase employment and boom trade. It is a beautiful discovery. I hope the Minister of Health shares in that view. If he does, his attitude towards the housing scheme of his predecessor is a little remarkable. The Minister of Agriculture, I thought, put forward his scheme admirably so far as as these facts were concerned. He had unemployment upon his lips, but in his heart was good business, and it is that good business to which we should draw attention. The hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. G. Edwards) both appealed for reclamation schemes; but I can tell them quite frankly that reclamation schemes will not do. If you reclaim land from the Wash it will not
belong to any private landlord. The schemes that are going to be adopted are the schemes that apply to private landlords. They are going to have afforestation schemes—it quite slipped out. An afforestation scheme is so simple. All that has to be done is to pay the landlord who wants to grow trees £ an acre, and the landlord will be good enough to grow trees. It was never explained why the landlord, if he had ground which was suitable for forestry, had not afforested already. Presumably the land was better for something else, but he is to be paid £3 an acre in order to plant trees upon it. The other scheme is for drainage—cleaning out gutters, opening up estuaries, and so on. Who will benefit from that? Both the right hon. Gentlemen who are now on the Government Bench know who will benefit, but neither of them knows it so well as the Minister of Agriculture, who has propounded these schemes. It is the same with all of them. There are the road-making schemes. Who will benefit from those? Of course, they will say the unemployed—the 75 per cent. unemployed. But we know perfectly well that, when these great arterial roads are made, it will be the landlords along each side of the road who will profit. Then there are the great new tram and tube schemes. No one is more anxious for the tram and tube schemes than the landlords who own the land at the end of the tubes and trams. They will make public parks with public money, paying the unemployed a small honorarium to get on with the work, and the man who owns the land all round the public park—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): There is nothing in this Vote about parks or tubes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Vote, I understand, is for £5,000,000 to assist in works connected with roads, reclamation works, draining, sewering, afforestation and light railways. It deals with all the things to which I have been referring. I know it is peculiarly annoying to landlords to have these things pointed out, but it is essential that we should all recognise that the expenditure of this money is not going to benefit the public pocket, but private pockets. Before I sit down I should like to ask a question of the two right hon. Gentlemen whom I see before me—one of whom was a great sup-
porter of the land campaign, and both of whom in the past took a very active part in the attempt to get back for the people, for the ratepayers, part of that value of the land which the ratepayers created.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They know now what rot it was.

8.0 P.M.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask them what precautions they are taking, because there are some schemes where public authorities do benefit themselves, where there are housing schemes and where local authorities have bought a considerable area of land for housing? Then, if a road is made, through the land belonging to the local authority, the local authority will benefit, and no private landlord benefits in that case. Where sewering work is done by a local authority the public will get the benefit of the improvement. Is there any check on those schemes whereby those will be preferred where the benefit goes to the public rather than those where it goes to private persons? As far as I can make out, the whole of the schemes of the Minister of Agriculture will benefit private landlords, but with the great number of those where roads and sewering and playgrounds are concerned—because playgrounds can be put in these new areas of land that the, local authorities acquire—the improvement improves the public property, and I hope the two graces who are sound on this question will persuade the third grace to cut down his grants which go into private pockets and increase those which go into public pockets.
I want particularly to draw attention to the Minister of Agriculture. His heart is in this scheme. He is going to spend money in country districts. He is going where necessary—and I think it will always be necessary—to transport the unemployed to the scene, and put up hutments to enable them to be on their work for the next six months. But the unemployment is in the towns, and the urgent need for this money to be spent is in the towns. (Interruption.) Nothing like to the same extent as in the towns. The hon. Baronet has not a constituency in which unemployment is rampant. Anyone who sits for an industrial district knows that unemployment is far worse than it has ever been in our history. There is
only £5,000,000 to go round. It had much better be spent in the neighbourhood where those people live rather than miles away where they have to be transported backwards and forwards.
Nor is that all. The right hon. Baronet said that in afforestation, drainage, and reclamation so much is spent on labour. In every one of these schemes there is the same amount spent in labour. Even if you are putting up a gasworks, the people who are employed are not the only labour to find employment through the scheme. Everyone is employed in some way. Therefore it is just as useful for the unemployment problem to put people on to putting up gasworks or extending tramways or building roads as it is to put them on afforestation. What puzzles me is, do the Government really believe that this is going to increase employment and improve trade? If they believe it is, how is it that Eric with the axe, at the same time that we are increasing £5,000,000 here, goes on cutting it down there? One policy or the other must be wrong. In the old days the Government changed their policy completely every six months. They had one policy for six months, and then another. That is understandable. They get wiser as they grow older. But here they have two policies side by side. While the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) has now £700,000 for forestry, Eric with the axe has just cut off £250,000 from the same Vote. It is delightful, but it is not politics. It is not statesmanship. It is not even common sense. I hope Lord St. Davids' Committee will consider whether they could not apply part of their time to the consideration of the battle-axe Committee, and see whether they are not Acing something which is at the same moment being stopped by someone else. In any case this grant is insufficient in amount if it is going to increase employment. It is an attack upon wages, because not only direct employed labour, but contract employed labour, and so labour in other competing industries, will come down 25 per cent. Above all, nothing is provided for women, who are out of work in enormous numbers. For all these reasons I hope many hon. Members will vote for the reduction in order to notify the insufficiency, the inadequacy, and the wrong principles upon which this grant is made.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,499,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 193.

Division No. 368.]
AYES.
[8.8 p.m.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hayward, Evan
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. sir O. (Anglesey)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Tootill, Robert


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kennedy, Thomas
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wignall, James


Finney, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Galbraith, Samuel
Randall, Athelstan
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gillls, William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Glanville, Harold James
Robertson, John
Wintringham, Margaret


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Royce, William Stapleton
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Spoor, B. G.
 TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Halls, Walter
Swan, J. E.
Mr. J. Jones and Mr. Mills.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Flannery, Sir James Fortescu[...]
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Martin, A. E.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Forrest, Walter
Mason, Robert


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Middlebrook, Sir William


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gardiner, James
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J


Barnston, Major Harry
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Barrand, A. R.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Morrison, Hugh


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Greer, Harry
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gregory, Holman
Neal, Arthur


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Parker, James


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Breese, Major Charles E.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Holmes, J. Stanley
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hood, Joseph
Perkins, Walter Frank


Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.
Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pratt, John William


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Purchase, H. G.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Campion, Lieut. Colonel W. R.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Ramsden, G. T.


Casey, T. W.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Raper, A. Baldwin


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Raw, Lieutenant Colonel Dr. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Remnant, Sir James


Chichester, Col. Robert
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jesson, C.
Rodger, A. K.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Craik, Rt. Hon. sir Henry
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Seager, Sir William


Dennis, J.W. (Birmingham, Derltend)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Seddon, J. A.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lloyd, George Butler
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Simm, M. T.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Evans, Ernest
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Maddocks, Henry
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Sugden, W. H.


Sutherland, Sir William
Waring, Major Walter
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Taylor, J.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Thomson, sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Yeo, sir Alfred William


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tryon, Major George Clement
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Colonel Leslie Wilson an[...]d Mr. Dudley Ward.


Turton, Edmund Russborough
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)



Wallace, J.
Wise, Frederick



Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Wolmer, Viscount



Original Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,720,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, to meet Expenditure not provided for in the original Army Estimates of the year, arising out of the Coal Stoppage.

Mr. HOGGE: This Estimate is an echo of the coal strike.

Mr. G. BARKER: The coal stoppage!

Mr. HOGGE: When the coal stoppage was on, many of us on this side of the House held the view very strongly that it was quite unnecessary, until the ordinary means of protecting life and property had been exhausted, to enrol any special defence force. We maintained that from day to day by argument, and the Government were never able during that period to adduce any single instance in which order could not have been maintained by the ordinary forces open to the Crown. Therefore this expenditure of nearly £7,000,000 has been entirely wasted. I was opposed to the policy of the creation of the defence force, and I shall vote against the Government having the money to pay for the force. One would like to know upon whose information the Government based the necessity for enrolling this defence force. We have had in the last few days something said in this House about the kind of information which is secured for the Government from the underworld of our social system outside. There is nothing more despicable in our public life than that kind of espionage. We are entitled to know, in the defence that the Government may make in asking for this Vote, upon whose information this plan was based. I know that I am correct in saying that it was an unnecessary force from the beginning to the end. It was the introduction into our industrial quarrels of a new factor, which was foreign to the public life of this country. It was
absolutely unnecessary and has proved so costly that it amounts to £1,720,000 more than we have just voted for the relief of the starving unemployed. There is the irony of the situation!

Major BARNES: The Bills keep coming in. This is one of the most interesting little Bills that has beer before the House. Some time this year the Government and the House got rattled, and they passed proposals for the establishment of this defence force, and now we know how much it has cost. The amount mentioned by my hon. Friend is not the real cost. The real cost is not £6,720,000, but nearly £8,000,000. That is what an attack of nerves has cost the country. There was never in the minds of anybody who knew the country any necessity for this force. This is a Bill for carrying on a little war in which there was no enemy. It commenced by the Government taking powers to call up 300,000 men. For what purpose? Not to carry on operations abroad, but to carry on operations at home. The Government thought that the country was in such a state that it was necessary to raise an army of 300,000 men to meet the emergency. Events have proved the Government to have been entirely wrong. We are entitled to know why the Government persisted in this expenditure when at the time of the stoppage it was evident that there was not the slightest likelihood of any serious disturbances taking place. There may have been moments when the negotiations were going on when timid people could have justified the fears that they held, but when the actual stoppage took place it was clearly evident to anybody who knew anything about the country that there was nothing in the nature of disturbances likely to take place that could not be dealt with by the ordinary police force. Against the money that they have spent the Government have set off something which is called a saving. Why are these particular items set off against the total charge? A sum of £833,000 is put down as a saving on the Territorial Army, and that is set off
as a saving against the expenditure on the defence force. Surely that is a saving that would have accrued in any event.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): indicated dissent.

Major BARNES: The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. We find that the savings given under Head 2 result from the diminished recruiting for the Territorial Army and the smaller numbers attending training. I do not know whether the Minister is going to suggest that one result of raising the Defence Force was to diminish recruiting for the Territorial Army. It is extremely likely that it had that effect, and that when people who were likely to have joined the Territorial Force had brought before them such an illustration of the purposes for which such a force might be used they were dissuaded from joining it. If the Minister puts that forward as one of the advantages we have derived from the setting up of the Defence Force, he is entitled to put that saving down, but if he does not make that contention we are, to a certain extent, being hoodwinked as to the real cost of the force.
My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) made a point of real substance when he asked for an explanation of the grounds upon which the Government based the necessity for this expenditure. To mobilise 300,000 men at a cost of nearly £8,000,000 is not a light thing to do. One of my earliest recollections of politics is what is known as the Pendje incident, when Mr. Gladstone came down and asked for what was called a monstrous sum. That request was based upon information, and it is only reasonable to assume that the Government when entering upon this expenditure had some information on which they justified the inception of this force. I would be interested to get some explanation on that point.
In the first paragraph of the Paper which is issued they say that the expenditure under both heads includes the cost of retaining some of the Regular Army, who would otherwise have been returned to civil life, and the cost of moves of Regular units necessitated by the emergency. So some sort of operations were carried on. On what information were those moves taken? Was it supplied by the Civil Intelligence Department, which the Govern-
ment is scrapping now? Members on this side of the House who opposed the inception of this force and the expenditure upon it have been more than justified, by the result, for the action which they then took. The effect of this expenditure has been that the Government has had to go in for unwise and injudicious economy. We have just been discussing the question of spending the miserable sum of £5,500,000 to deal with the problem of unemployment, and here we have an expenditure of over £8,000,000 money simply thrown away, and money which, if in the Exchequer at present, would have gone a long way to meet the needs of the moment in respect of unemployment. This is one of the gravest examples of miscalculation by the Government. It has caused them to spend an enormous amount of public money, and thus deprive them of means which would be wanted at present to come to the relief of those who have been overtaken by the wave of unemployment now passing through the land.

Mr. BARKER: The Minister of Health said this afternoon that if it had not been for the coal stoppage the Government would have had very much more money to deal with the problem of unemployment. That is the truth; but the fact that the coal stoppage itself took place was largely the fault of the Government who decontrolled the mines six months before the statutory time for decontrol. Then, again, after the Government had decontrolled the mines the coal-owners served notice upon every man and boy in the mining industry for the purpose of reducing wages in many cases by no less than two guineas a week.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot now discuss the question of the coal stoppage. The question now before us arises out of the action taken in April last when it was decided to vote the men. It will be quite in order to criticise the general action of the War Office since that Vote was granted as the hon. Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) has done, but the hon. Member cannot go into the general question of industrial disputes.

Mr. BARKER: I only want to show that the Government provoked the whole business. At any rate the Government were responsible for calling up the military forces when there was no necessity to call them up. The country was never
in a more peaceful condition. There was never a dispute of such a gigantic size carried on with so little disorder as the coal dispute, and right throughout the whole dispute there were no manifestations of disorder that could not have been dealt with adequately by the forces of the Crown. Therefore it was merely provocative action of the Government to call out these forces. These men were brought into the mining areas where peace and order prevailed. They were brought in wearing steel helmets and marched right through the place where I lived with fixed bayonets, which was a gross outrage upon the civil population. It has been insinuated by the Minister of Health that the miners were responsible, but the Committee has never been asked to vote money less justifiably than on the present occasion. It may be said that I am not fit to sit in judgment on the Government on this matter. I admit that I am very much biased against the Government, but I may read a quotation from one of our greatest newspapers, not a Labour or a Socialist newspaper, but one of the most influential newspapers circulating in this country. I refer to the "Daily Telegraph." In its issue of 21st July it said at the conclusion of the national lockout of 13 weeks:
The miners, who fought a hard battle, have upheld their reputation for stubborn tenacity; and for orderliness; while disorder has been so rare that the few instances in which it may have occurred are not worth remembering. Certainly nobody is a winner.
That is the opinion of an impartial writer expressing the views of millions of people in this country after the termination of this dispute. The Government have spent millions of pounds unnecessarily, and now they are trying to throw the blame for this wicked expenditure upon the innocent coalminers of the country. We repudiate the charge made against us by the Government. We say that the Government did take sides with the coalowners during this dispute, and brought down these men on purpose to intimidate the miners. That is our opinion, fortified by the opinion of this great public journal. We feel justified, therefore, in going into the Lobby against this Vote.

Mr. HAYWARD: I thoroughly agree with the observations of the hon. Members
who have preceded me, but I think they have rather under-estimated the cost, because the truth is that not only were these troops of no use, not only was the expenditure waste, but the troops were sent into the mining areas and were a positive incitement in districts which otherwise were tranquil and orderly. I think my hon. Friends under-estimated the bill for these services, because I read at the beginning of the explanation of this Supplementary Estimate that
The bulk of the expenditure under Head 1 consists of the maintenance cost of the Defence Force and the officers and men of the Reserves recalled to the Colours, whose numbers were voted in the Supplementary Estimate for Vote A, dated 8th April, 1921.
I ask the hon. Gentleman representing the War Office whether this supplementary item for £6,720,000 covered the whole of the expense of the Army in relation to the coal stoppage? My recollection is that there was a Supplementary Estimate about the time referred to, 8th April, 1921. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what was the amount then granted? If a sum was then granted, I take it that we have to add that sum to the present sum in order to ascertain what was the total cost. We must also remember that there was a large expenditure in respect of the Navy and in respect of the Air Force. I notice that under Head VI B (3) there is an item "Unemployment Insurance, £936,000." As an explanation of that, there is on page 3 of the Memorandum a rather curious phrase. It says:
The Charge under Head VI for Unemployment Insurance represents a lump sum of £7 per head payable under the wording of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, to the Unemployment Fund for each man of the Army Reserve and Defence Force reverting to civil life, in respect of the short period of emergency service now given.
The Memorandum goes on:
To obviate this unexpected result for the future, an Amendment was made in the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1921.
That suggests that the charge of £936,000 arises from a mistake of someone. I wish the Financial Secretary to the War Office would explain those two points.

Mr. WIGNALL: We have heard so much of saving and anti-waste in this House that we are astounded to find
that the people who shouted loudest against waste are the people responsible for the absolute waste of the money we are voting now. I am at a loss to know how this enormous amount was expended. We who had an opportunity of travelling the country during the time of the unfortunate coal stoppage knew the enormous preparations of the Government to cope with difficulties that they alone expected to arise. Take my own district, which is a fairly large mining area, with every man unemployed during the stoppage. During the whole period of the stoppage I do not believe there was an extra policeman in the area. There were the usual meetings and demonstrations, but if this Vote could be analysed I do not believe there was an extra 3d. spent in that area. For this great combination of Army Reserve, Defence Force, and all the rest of it, that was gathered together as if the country had gone to war, the money expended was wasted. It makes me feel like a man who has an expensive wife, a wife who buys jewellery and dresses and decorates herself beautifully, and then the poor husband gets the bills. He begins to scratch his head, and to say words that we cannot repeat in this House.
We are in that position to-night. We see the extravagance of the Government, but we are like the aggrieved husband and have to foot the bill. If I had my way and had the power, I would compel every individual who voted for the calling up of these Reserve Forces to pay the bill. There is no hope of that happening. Whether we go into the Lobby or not, we know that the bill has to be paid. I emphatically protest against this wicked waste of money at a time when the nation can least afford it. It is the result of panic legislation. It is the result of nerves and of the fright that took possession of the War Office and those associated with them, because somebody said that the whole country was on the verge of revolution, because someone said that the wicked Bolshevists were stirring up the nation and the Government must prevent it. It is a heavy price which we have to pay for that little bit of a panic. I shall vote against the expenditure as I voted against the calling up of the Reserves at a time when they were not required.

Mr. GILLIS: After so much discussion on unemployment and so much advice
that it was necessary to cut down expenditure, it is beyond my comprehension that any Government should be so short-sighted and guilty of so much stupidity as to incur this expenditure. We have had a deal of talk in this House about optical glasses and about a tariff on them. I should think if anyone wants the tariff taken off optical glasses it should be the Members of this Government. They are so short-sighted that they each require a fresh pair, from the Prime Minister downwards. We have also had a discussion on the wonderful man who gave advice to the Government as to what was occurring in the country, and as to the plans for disorder which the Bolsheviks were making in this country in their efforts to stir up strife. He has been described to us as the most wonderful man in the world, and the benches were more thronged during that Debate than they are this evening. The Anti-Waste benches were also thronged when it was a case of voting for all these men being called to defend King and country, but to-night we see no Anti-Waste party and we have no-one to tell us what was the exact information given to the Government by this wonderful man as to the possibilities of revolution in this country through the coal stoppage. Was that the best advice, the Government could get? Was it advice which they should have accepted as against that which was given them from these benches, namely, that there was no cause whatever for the Government to get the wind up? Now we are called upon to spend nearly £8,000,000 because the Government got the wind up at a time when the ship lay as quietly as possible and the sea was as smooth as glass.
The difficulty with me is to discover, first, exactly where the Government got their advice, and secondly, what they needed with 300,000 men. What was their real object? Did they want peace and quietude in this country, or did they want rows, riots and revolution? Was the Government disappointed because there was not a row, because there was not a, revolution, and because these men could not be used in the same direction as Government authority had been used in Ireland? The miners showed an example to the Government. They showed that under every stress and every disadvantage they, as much even as Members of the Government, could behave
themselves like quiet citizens. We told you from these Benches that would be the case. Some of us have spent almost a lifetime in advising the miners that rows and riots and revolutions are no good to the workers of this country or to anybody else. The miners have been trained to that extent, that they acknowledge that principle and practice it. Yet, although told that from these Benches, the Government were so short-sighted as to call these men up. If they were not short-sighted, then they did so intentionally. Let me put it in that way, that the Government called these men up to excite the miners of this country and to bring about riot. There could be no other intention in it, and the only alternative is that the Government are actually as short-sighted as the majority of people believe them to be because of the way they are always going back on their decisions. It scarcely ever starts an engine without reversing it and in this they have again proved themselves wrong. This has been a wicked waste of money, and the Government have shown themselves ready to waste more money than they are prepared to give to the women and kiddies of the unemployed men. We have pleaded with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Agriculture to grant money for the unemployed, but you put a straight jacket on that proposal by the Financial Resolution. If you had put straight jackets on yourselves before you called these men up and stopped this wilful waste, it would have been a kindness to the country, and you would now have had the money for more worthy objects. It is a standing disgrace to the Government and the country that public money should be spent in this way by those who would not heed the advice given them by men who knew the situation thoroughly. If Labour is worth anything, surely its advice in a matter of this kind is worthy of consideration. We have heard a very responsible Member of the Government asking, "Can Labour govern?" If Labour governs any worse than the present Government, then God help this country. I desire to enter the strongest protest against this wilful waste of public money.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Hon. Members opposite all along objected to the raising of the Defence force and the call-
ing out of the reserves, and I am bound to say their speeches to-night do not show any change of opinion. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) asked why was the Defence force ever raised. That question was asked during the Debate on 18th April last when the Supplementary Estimate for these extra men was under consideration, and I cannot do better than quote exactly what the Prime Minister said on that occasion:
I had rather stand at this box to defend over-insurance than wider-insurance when you have the condition of things with which we were possibly confronted about a week or a fortnight ago.

Mr. HOGGE: I really did not ask that, because I heard the Prime Minister give that very futile reason. I asked on whose information the Prime Minister and the Government based their decision.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot answer that question. I do not think the hon. Member expected that I either could or would answer it. Coming to the actual question of the Estimate, the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) argued that the Estimate was not for £7,000,000, but was really for something like £8,000,000. He argued that the saving which is shown under Head 2 was not really a saving. He is not correct in that. The saving was made up in this way. Before the coal stoppage, recruiting for the Territorial Army was very brisk. During the dispute, of course, there was no enlistment at all in the Territorial force. I may say, however, that the statement that the raising of the Defence Force prevented recruits coming in afterwards to the Territorial force is absolutely and entirely incorrect. They are coming in very well since. During that time, however, there was no training going on. The forces were so much below establishment that it was left to the general officers commanding to decide whether they would have training in camp or not, and the net result was a saving, as is shown on this Estimate, of something in the neighbourhood of £750,000. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Hayward) asked what was the Supplementary Estimate of the 8th April. That Supplementary Estimate was presented on the 8th April and was voted on the 18th April. It was not a Supple-
mentary Estimate in the shape of money, but in men, for the Defence Force and for the calling up of the reserves.

Mr. HOGGE: This, then, is the whole sum?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: This is the whole sum. The previous Vote was only for the men. The hon. Member for Seaham then asked a question about the Unemployment Insurance Act, and he said there was some mistake by someone. There was not any mistake. A soldier in the regular Army is not insured while in the Army, because he is never unemployed there—he is always very hard worked—but on his discharge £7 a head is paid to the Unemployment Fund, and that insures him for twelve months following his discharge. When the Territorial force does its annual training, under the Insurance Act of 1912 they are treated as if they were civilians in civil employ—that is, there is no break in their status by reason of the short training, both the employers' and employés' contributions being paid by the Army. That was not the case in connection with the Defence force, and therefore it was held that the men of the Reserve and the Defence force were liable for that whole amount. If we had not paid it, the soldiers and others who had come up for the Defence force would not have been entitled to the maximum number of benefits after the end of the time. I may point out that this £1,000,000 goes to the Unemployment Insurance Fund; it is not a direct out-payment except to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. There is no mistake about it. In future it will not be so, because in the Insurance Act, 1921, a Clause was inserted directly dealing with this point. I think I have answered all the questions that were put about the Estimate, and I hope the Committee will now allow me to have this Vote.

Mr. MOSLEY: I must confess that I anticipated a more adequate explanation of this Supplementary Estimate than has been accorded to the Committee. After all, at the time of the coal strike, when the House voted these Measures, the House and the country were faced with a great national emergency, and the House was without information of its own on the situation and accepted the word of the Government that the country was indeed in serious difficulties, and that real trouble was anticipated. That time of
stress and danger passed without any untoward incidents of any sort, and the House is now entitled to ask the Government on what information and on what authority they committed the country to this great expenditure for apparently no adequate reason, as things turned out, at all. After all, it is not merely a question of the money involved in this Estimate; it is a much bigger question than that—the question of the dislocation of industry by removing all these men from productive employment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The question of the men was settled on 18th April. We cannot go into that now, and the argument about the advice given to the Government is one that has been used several times already.

Mr. MOSLEY: But it has not been answered.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must remember that we are now considering the War Office Vote, and it is only the representative of the War Office in charge of this Estimate who can answer. He has given the answer so far as he was able to give it. That does not justify repetition of the same argument.

Mr. MOSLEY: I submit that I am perfectly entitled to press the hon. and gallant Gentleman for an answer which he refuses to give to arguments that have been advanced in this Debate and which you, Sir, have ruled to be in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I allowed other hon. Members previously to put that question to the Minister, who has now said that he is not in a position to answer it. He represents the War Office, and the War Office Estimate is now under consideration, and I cannot allow that point to be further dealt with.

Mr. MOSLEY: If the argument is in order, then perhaps I am in order in pressing it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I have ruled that that argument cannot be repeated.

Mr. MOSLEY: Do I understand that we are not in order in pressing for an answer to arguments which have been advanced and which have been admitted by you, Sir, from the Chair in the case of other hon. Members?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have given my ruling in regard to that matter.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: I think the reply given by my hon. and gallant Friend on behalf of the War Office is very unsatisfactory. You have just ruled, Mr. Deputy-Chairman—and I do not object to the ruling against repetition—that we cannot press the argument again about asking on whose information the War Office raised this Defence Force, but we can, of course, draw attention to the fact that it is possible for the. War Office, or any other Government Department, to spend public money to the extent of £6,750,000 and refuse information to the House on whose advice they spent that money, and we can, of course, vote against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), who tried to put the point, must content himself with that as his protest, and I invite the Committee to vote against the Government because of the absolutely subversive nature of the reply which we have received. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend, who does nothing in these Debates but laugh, is entitled to that expression of his views, and we on this side are accustomed to that continual reiteration, but, after all, some of us have some regard for the methods by which the Government runs the country, and it is an impossible position, I submit, even to my hon. Friend who laughs, for any Government, even for a Labour Government, if it were in power, to which he would object, or a Liberal Government, to which he would equally object, to spend public money to the extent of millions and refuse to say on whose advice that money was spent. I should have thought that, whether my hon. Friend approved or disapproved of the Defence Force, he would have agreed, at any rate, with that argument. Perhaps he is in the confidence of the Government, and perhaps that is why he does not want the information, but if I were a constituent of the hon. Member I should want to know why he was able to vote nearly £7,000,000 of money for no reason. However, our protest will be made in the Division Lobby. There is one other point which is eminently unsatisfactory. The Financial Secretary says there is no mistake about it, but by reason of the Defence Force spending £6,000,000 the Government found a way of contributing £936,000 to the Unem-
ployed Fund. I hope the next time they issue a manifesto to the country as to what they have done for unemployment they will point out that, in addition to the money which we are going to pass in this part of the Session for unemployment, they also spent £6,750,000 in an effort to provide £936,000 for the unemployed.

Mr. SWAN: To ask the miners' section of the community for this Vote is little less than a scandal. I cannot understand how the Government can come with equanimity and ask for this Vote, especially when we understand that, owing to their policy, the industry has been brought into a state of bankruptcy and that they have thrown thousands of our men out of work. We all remember that we repeatedly put up protests against the foolish policy of the Government, that they were involving the country in a very large expenditure and embarrassing people whom they were calling up, with no other objective than seeking to crush the mining community into a state of poverty and getting men from the ranks of the miners to take sides with the employers against the mine workers, the men of their own class. What was more, we knew our own people, and their mentality and the psychology of the miners, and we tendered repeatedly advice to the Government which, had they listened to it, would have made them pause, and no such action would have been embarked upon, especially in the light of the finances of the nation. First of all, there was no need; in the second place, the finances of the country did not justify it. I think, therefore, it is within the right of any Members of this House to ask on whose advice the Government took the action they did.
There is something more. We will have to face, during the course of the week, another item. The Government were responsible for purchasing between 300,000 and 400,000 tons of coal from Belgium during that period, and we shall be called upon to toe the bill owing to the blundering policy of the Government. I suppose we shall be told we are not to ask any questions of the Department which seeks the Supplementary Estimate. What were the facts? The purchase at that very period of coal at 56s. a ton, when it was sold at the pit head here at 38s., I suppose the hon. Member opposite who can smile at such
a proposition would say that that was a very good business deal. The taxpayers have got to pay for that blunder. Yet when the miners come along and ask for a grant to assist them over a bad period, money cannot be found to assist them, and at the very time when we are told there is no money in the Exchequer, the Government appeal for this grant, the necessity of which is brought about by their own folly. I hope we shall get good support when we go into the Division Lobby against this blundering policy, which has involved the country in such a heavy expense.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: If our advice had been taken at the end of March or in April of this year, there would have been no necessity to bring this Estimate before the House. We complained of the measures and steps that were taken throughout March, and we went further, and pointed out through the month of April that all the steps that were then being taken, which would entail additional expense, were quite unnecessary. I am not going to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down. He dealt at some length with the advice that was given by somebody in authority, but who was entirely misguided and knew nothing at all about the coal trade or the miners engaged in it. We pleaded then that there was no necessity at all to embark upon a policy that would bring a charge upon the taxpayers of this country, but we were laughed at and told that we did not understand the situation. Early in March we pleaded here for an extension of control of the industry for six weeks. That would have cost, at the outside, anything up to £5,000,000. We were told that it could not be done. Member after Member on these benches said that if the

Government persisted in their policy the damage done to the trade of the country would be at least £100,000,000. We are discussing a Vote to-night which entails close upon £7,000,000 extra, and I venture to repeat that we are entitled to be informed as to who was responsible for guiding the Department at the time we were discussing this matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was a matter which should have been dealt with in April last, when the House decided on the policy at that time.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I am obliged to you, Sir, for guiding me in the right direction, but I think I am entitled to some fuller information with regard to the grounds on which the decision was taken which has embarked the country on the expense in the Estimate. The advice we gave them is amply borne out in the fact that the Government have gone from blunder to blunder. Nobody has seemed to care what has become of the trade of the country, and the taxpayers are now to be called upon to meet an expenditure of nearly £7,000,000, which they should never have been called upon to pay. I think on that ground we are entitled to get some more information than we have got already.
Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,720,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, to meet Expenditure not provided for in the original Army Estimates of the year, arising out of the Coal Stoppage."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 43.

Division No. 369.]
AYES.
[9.15 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Casey, T. W.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Chichester, Col. Robert
Forrest, Walter


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Barnston, Major Harry
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Barrand, A. R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Goff, Sir R. Park


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Green, Albert (Derby)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Dawson, Sir Philip
Greer, Harry


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Gregory, Holman


Breese, Major Charles E.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brittain, Sir Harry
Edge, Captain William
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hallwood, Augustine


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Evans, Ernest
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Neal, Arthur
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hood, Joseph
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, W. H.


Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Sutherland, Sir William


Hopkins, John W. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Taylor, J.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Parker, James
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B
Perkins, Walter Frank
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Tryon, Major George Clement


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pratt, John William
Wallace, J.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Purchase, H. G.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Ramsden, G. T.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Raper, A. Baldwin
Waring, Major Walter


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Lloyd, George Butler
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Rodger, A. K.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wise, Frederick


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Martin, A. E.
Seager, Sir William
Worsfold, T. Cato


Mason, Robert
Seddon, J. A.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Middlebrook, Sir William
Shaw, Hon. Alex, (Kilmarnock)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Simm, M. T.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)



Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)



Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.



NOES.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hay ward, Evan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Swan, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cairns, John
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Tillett, Benjamin


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mills, John Edmund
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mosley, Oswald
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Myers, Thomas
Watts-Morgan, Lieut-Colonel D.


Finney, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wignall, James


Gillis, William
Rendall, Atheistan
Wintringham, Margaret


Glanville, Harold James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Robertson, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Hartshorn.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)



Halls, Walter




Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £965,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, namely:—

£
£


Vote 1.—Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines
745,000



Vote 2.—Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
212,000



Vote 11.—Miscellaneous Effective Services
68,000





1,025,000


Less Surpluses on—




Vote 7.—Royal Naval Reserves
37,000



Vote 13.—Half Pay and Retired Pay
23,000





60,000


Net Amount

£965,000"

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1921–22.

CLASS V.

COLONIAL SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES. STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £62,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the State Liquor Districts, including the Salaries of the Central Office and the Cost of Compensation for Acquisition and of Direct Control of Licensed Premises and Businesses.

MISCELLANEOUS WAR SERVICES (FOREIGN OFFICE).

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Cost of certain Miscellaneous War Services.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, the sum of £15,919,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

UNEMPLOYED WORKERS' DEPENDANTS (TEMPORARY PROVISION) BILL.

Motion made, and Question "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith" put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Grants for maintenance of wife and children of unemployed workers.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act there shall, while this Act continues in force, be payable to every person who is an unemployed worker within the meaning of this Act towards the maintenance of his wife and dependent children a grant at the rate provided by this Act:
Provided that—

(a) where the husband of an unemployed worker is prevented by physical or mental infirmity from supporting himself and is being maintained wholly or mainly by his wife the grant under this Act shall, instead of being payable as herein-before provided, be payable to the wife towards the maintenance of her husband and her dependent children; and
(b) no grant shall be payable under this Act in respect of a wife who is in receipt of unemployment benefit
174
under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, or under any special scheme made under those Acts, or who is in regular wage-earning employment, or is engaged in any occupation ordinarily carried on for a profit.

(5) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "wife" means a wife who is living with or is being maintained wholly or mainly by her husband, and includes a person who is living as his wife with the person claiming a grant, and any female person who is residing with a person claiming a grant for the purpose of having the care of his dependent children and is being maintained by him:

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), after the word "children" ["wife and dependent children a grant"], insert
or in the case of an unemployed worker being a woman who has a husband or children dependent on her, towards the maintenance of that husband and those children".

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the first of three Amendments inserted in the other place. It is a drafting Amendment, and the same remark applies to the next Amendment to leave out paragraph (a), and to that on the next page to leave out the word "a."

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), leave out paragraph (a).

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1, b), leave out the word "a" ["for a profit"].

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The omission of this word is for drafting purposes.

Lords Amendment:

After Sub-section (1) insert a new Sub-section—
(2) Where a female person is residing with an unemployed worker who is a widower or
unmarried, for the purpose of having the care of his dependent children and is being maintained by him, or has been and is living as his wife with a person who is such an unemployed worker as aforesaid, a grant under this Act shall be payable to the unemployed worker in respect of that person at the same rate, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions at, in and subject to which a grant would be payable to him under this Act if that person were his wife.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The addition of these words, while it is again drafting, is more than that. It carries out an undertaking which I gave when the Bill was in this House. The effect is that a woman living with a claimant as his wife is not now included under the definition of wife, but her right to a grant is brought into the Bill. This is to bring the provision with regard to the housekeeper into its proper place.

Lords Amendment:
In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "and includes a person who is living as his wife with the person claiming a grant, and any female person who is residing with a person claiming a grant for the purpose of having the care of his dependent children and is being maintained by him,
and insert
and for the purposes of this Act a husband shall be deemed to be dependent on his wife if he is prevented by physical or mental infirmity from supporting himself and is being maintained wholly or mainly by her.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment completes the undertaking to which I have just referred. By deleting from the definition "wife" a woman living with a claimant as his wife. The Amendment brings into the definition Sub-section an invalid husband which we introduced into the Title.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment does not alter the sense, and that it is only drafting? I have only just seen the Amendment, and it is rather difficult to follow at the present moment. Can he assure us that the Bill, as it left the House of Commons, is not substantially altered in regard to the housekeeper and the unmarried wife?

Dr. MACNAMARA: When the Bill left this House the expression "wife" meant a person
living with or who is being maintained wholly or mainly by her husband, and includes a person who is living as his wife with the person claiming a grant, and any female person who is residing with a person claiming a grant for the purpose of having the care of his dependent children and is being maintained by him.
The definition, with this Amendment inserted, will read:
The expression 'wife' means a wife who is living with or is being maintained wholly or mainly by her husband and for the purposes of this Act a husband shall be deemed to be dependent on his wife.
The other Amendment, which refers to the case of a woman living with a man has been brought in earlier, and so it can be set in juxtaposition. For the rest, the substantive part of the Bill is not affected.

CIVIL SERVICE (EMPLOYMENT OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the employment in the Civil Service of men who, in the exercise of the right granted to them by the Military Service Acts, were granted exemption from the combatant service on conscientious grounds; and to report what action, if any, is desirable in respect of these men."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Mr. HOGGE: If this Committee is agreed to, can my hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Colonel L. Wilson) say whether it will meet after the Prorogation, and if it will report in the next Session of Parliament, or what scheme he has in his head with regard to it?

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I have not considered that question. Obviously the Committee will have to be appointed again in the next Session of Parliament. It cannot be carried on after the Prorogation.

Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps Mr. Speaker can assist us. I would ask you, Sir, if it be not possible to give permission for a Committee of this kind to sit while Parliament is not in Session? If not, it seems rather useless to set up a Committee for a
couple of days. It is rather obvious, if permission cannot be given for it to sit during the Recess, that the best plan would be to leave the appointment over until the beginning; of next Session, instead of going through the formality of setting up a Committee which cannot possibly meet.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite clear that when the House has been prorogued the Committees of the House cease to function.

Mr. HOGGE: If that be so, may I appeal to the Government not to take this Motion? The House will prorogue on Thursday, and it is no use setting up a Committee that cannot meet.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 18th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes before Ten o'clock.